DAW et al v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY

Plaintiff: NANCY A. DAW and STEPHEN L. HOBACK
Defendant: CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY
Case Number: 1:2016cv02550
Filed: September 26, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
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
January 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER - This case arises out of a property dispute between pro se Plaintiffs Nancy A. Daw and Stephen L. Hoback, ("Plaintiffs") and Defendant Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County ("the City"). Plaintiffs allege th at the City violated their procedural and substantive due process rights by acquiring a portion of their property by eminent domain to engage in a "public works project" in Plaintiffs' neighborhood. Plaintiffs' operative Second Amended Complaint, [Filing No. 42], is their third attempt at pleading a cognizable claim. Presently pending before the Court is the third motion filed by Defendants seeking final resolution of this matter: in this instance, a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). [Filing No. 43.] For the reasons described below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(1), because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. For the reasons described above, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint 42 , without prejudice to refiling in a court that has jurisdiction over this matter, if any exists. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the City's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Final judgment shall issue separately. (SEE ORDER). Copy to plaintiffs via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/18/2018. (APD)
October 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER - This case arises from a dispute between pro se Plaintiffs Nancy Daw and Stephen Hoback (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Marion County and the City of Indianapolis (collectively "Defendants") regarding a portion of Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Following a dismissal of their original complaint, they filed an Amended Complaint in this Court, requesting compensatory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, [Filing No. 35 ], which Plaintiffs oppose. For the reasons described below, the Court grants Defendants 9; Motion and dismisses Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice. For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 35 ], and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, [Filing No. 34 ], without prejudice. Plaintiffs have thirty days to file a Second Amended Complaint if they intend to continue to pursue this action. (SEE ORDER). Copy to Plaintiffs via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/11/2017. (APD)
June 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER - This case arises from a dispute between pro se Plaintiffs Nancy Daw and Stephen Hoback (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Marion County and the City of Indianapolis (collectively "Defendants") regarding a portion of Plaintiffs' property. Defendants acquired a portion of Plaintiffs' property via a condemnation action in Indiana state court. Plaintiffs allege that this acquisition occurred in violation of their rights under the Due Process and Eq ual Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution. They filed the instant suit, requesting compensatory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants have moved for judgment on the pleadings, which Plaintiffs oppose. For the reasons described below, the Court grants Defendants' Motion and dismisses Plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice. For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, [Filing No. [16 ]], and DISMISSES Plaintiffs' Complaint, [Filing No. 1 ], without prejudice. Plaintiffs have thirty days to file an amended complaint if they intend to continue to pursue this action. (See Order). Copies to Plaintiffs via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/1/2017. (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: DAW et al v. CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY
Represented By: Benjamin J. Church
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: NANCY A. DAW
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: STEPHEN L. HOBACK
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 [ 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?