LAUDERDALE v. LAYTON et al
| LAMONE LAUDERDALE |
| DEVON CLARK, JOHN LAYTON, WILLIAM RUSSELL, SCHULTZ and THOMAS WILLIAMS |
| 1:2016cv02684 |
| October 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
170
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE - For the reasons stated above, the Defendants Motion in Limine (Filing No. 157 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (See Entry for details.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/8/2020. (NAD)
|
|
Filing
160
ENTRY - GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 143 MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITNESSES. For these reasons, Defendants' Motion in Limine to Exclude Plaintiff's Experts (Filing No. 143 ) is GRANTED. The four medical profess ionals identified in Lauderdale's expert disclosure (Filing No. 143-1) will be permitted to testify only as fact witnesses; they are barred from giving expert opinion testimony. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/26/2019. (NAD)
|
|
Filing
139
ENTRY ON DEFENDANTS' 131 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Lauderdale did not respond to the Motion and the time to do so has expired. In addition, there is no evidence to show that Lauderdale was denied medical assistance in retaliati on for his claims against Defendants. Because there is no evidence to substantiate municipal liability under 42 U.S. § 1983, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Lauderdale's official capacity claims. For the reasons stated above, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 131 ), is GRANTED. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/24/2019. (NAD)
|
|
Filing
94
ENTRY - 89 Motion to Enter Default Judgment or the Courts to Intervene is denied because the defendants are not in default. Lauderdale next alleges that defendant Correct Care Solutions of Indiana, LLC, and its medical staff, were negligent an d deliberately indifferent to violations of Lauderdale's constitutional rights and his serious medical needs. These claims are dismissed without prejudice because they are misjoined. Lauderdale is reminded that the Court severed his initial c laims that medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Those claims are proceeding in case number 1:17-cv-02168-TWP-DML. The clerk is directed to terminate Correct Care Solutions of Indiana, LLC, as a defendant in this action . In count nine of the second amended complaint, Lauderdale attempts to bring a claim of retaliation but does not name any defendants. Therefore, this claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants Rus sell, Schultz, Clark, and Williams, Talley-Sanders, Layton, and Street have already appeared in this action. They shall have twenty-one (21) days to answer the second amended complaint. The clerk shall add Deputy Erich Gephart and Deputy Cameron Ne lson as defendants. Because Lauderdale is represented by counsel, he shall serve defendants Gephart and Nelson with the second amended complaint and this Entry, unless counsel requests assistance from the Court. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/26/2018. (MEJ)
|
|
Filing
49
ENTRY Granting Motion to Amend and Directing Further Proceedings: Plaintiff Lamone Lauderdale's initial complaint was screened in the Entry of November 22, 2016. The claims that are curre ntly proceeding are the claims that Deputies William Russell, Devon Clark, Thomas Williams, and Shultz exercised excessive force against him or failed to protect him from the use of force and exhibited deliberate indifference to his need for medical attention. Lauderdale has filed a motion to amend his complaint seeking to add a number of new claims against a n umber of new defendants. Lauderdale's motion to amend, dkt. 47 , is granted. The clerk shall re-docket the proposed amended complaint [dkt 47-1] as the Amended Complaint. The claims against Talley-Sanders shall proceed as a claim for negligent supervision under Indiana law and a claim that Talley-Sanders was deliberately indifferent to Lauderdale's need for medical attention. Lauderdale also asserts that Marion County Sheriff John Layton was negligent and deliberately indi fferent by failing to supervise his employees and provide a safe and secure jail and this resulted in the Lauderdale's injuries. These claims shall proceed. Because Laude rdale has named Duncan and Propst as defendants, the claims against them will be severed. To effectuate this ruling, a new civil action from the Indianapolis Division shall be opened, consistent with t he following (SEE ENTRY). The clerk shall add Colonel Eva Talley-Sanders and Sherriff John Layton as defendants. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Talle y-Sanders and Layton in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. Copy to Eva Talley-Sanders and Sheriff John Layton via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/22/2017. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
11
ENTRY Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Given the foregoing, the following claims are dismissed: Any claim against Sheriff John Layton is dismissed. Lauderdale alleges no actionable wrong doing by Sheriff Layton. Any claim t hat the plaintiff was denied equal protection under the law is also dismissed because he does not allege that he was treated unfairly based on his membership in any particular protected class.The claims that Deputies William Russell, Devon Clark, Thomas Williams, and Shultz exercised excessive force against the plaintiff and exhibited deliberate indifference to his need for medical attention shall proceed as claims that these defendants violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights a nd as claims that these defendants battered the plaintiff in violation of Indiana law. The clerk shall terminate defendant Layton from the docket. The defendants have already appeared in this action. They shall have twenty-one days after the issuance of this Entry to file an Answer to the complaint. (See entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/22/2016.(JLS)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
