PARSONS v. GILBERT
Plaintiff: CHARLES PARSONS
Defendant: GILBERT
Case Number: 1:2016cv02343
Filed: August 31, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 31 Entry Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - Charles Parsons brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Ariene Gilbert, his former parole officer. Mr. Parsons alleges that while he was on parole, his state-mandated GPS ankle monitor began to cause severe pain and injury to his leg. He asserts two related Eighth Amendment claims against Ms. Gilbert, contending that she was (1) deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by not pr oviding or seeing to his medical treatment, and (2) deliberately indifferent to the pain and injury caused by the GPS ankle monitor by not assisting with the removal or loosening of the monitor. Ms. Gilbert seeks summary judgment on both claims. O n the first claim, she argues that she owed no duty to provide medical care to Mr. Parsons because he was not a prisoner in the state's custody. On the second claim, Ms. Gilbert argues she was not deliberately indifferent to the harm and pain caused by the monitor, and that in any event, she is entitled to qualified immunity. Ms. Gilbert's motion for summary judgment on the deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is granted. That claim is dismissed. Ms. Gilbert 9;s motion for summary judgment on Mr. Parsons's second claim is denied. Ms. Gilbert's motion for summary judgment, dkt. 21 , on Mr. Parsons's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is granted and that claim is dis missed. Summary judgment on the second claim, deliberate indifference to Mr. Parsons's pain and the harm caused by the GPS ankle monitor is denied and that claim will proceed to trial. No partial judgment will enter at this time. Because this action will be resolved either by trial or settlement, the Court on its own motion reconsiders Mr. Parsons's September 21, 2017, motion for assistance with recruiting counsel. That motion, dkt. 28 , is granted. The Court will attempt to rec ruit counsel for Mr. Parsons to assist him in final preparations for trial, for settlement discussions, and for jury or non-jury trial. The Magistrate Judge is requested to schedule this action for a status conference at his earliest opportunity to discuss what remains to be done in preparation for trial and for the possibility of settlement. (SEE ENTRY). Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/13/2018. (APD)
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: PARSONS v. GILBERT
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GILBERT
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 ]
Plaintiff: CHARLES PARSONS
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?