BROOKS v. LAYTON et al
Plaintiff: MARC JEFFREY BROOKS
Defendant: NIKOLAS LAYTON, STEVEN PARKS and TWO OTHER OFFICERS
Case Number: 1:2016cv00171
Filed: January 21, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Matthew P. Brookman
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 23 Entry denying 17 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (USCA #16-1921) - There is no objectively reasonable argument the plaintiff could present to argue that the dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous. In pursui ng an appeal, therefore, the petitioner "is acting in bad faith... [because] to sue in bad faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit." L ee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, his appeal is not taken in good faith, and for this reason his request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [dkt 17] is denied. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/28/2016. (JLS)
April 18, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 15 Entry Denying Second Post-Judgment Motion - For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion renewed for leave to file an amended complaint [dkt. 14] must be denied.(See order). Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/18/2016. (JLS)
January 25, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 4 Entry Granting Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Dismissing Complaint - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. For the reasons stated above, Mr. Brooks's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Mr. Brooks shall have through February 22, 2016 to amend his complaint or, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. (See Order). The clerk is directed to change the name of defendant "Mikolas Layton" to "Nikolas Layton" on the docket. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/25/2016. (JLS)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BROOKS v. LAYTON et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MARC JEFFREY BROOKS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: NIKOLAS LAYTON
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: STEVEN PARKS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: TWO OTHER OFFICERS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?