GRIFFITH v. A. DOWNEY et al
| JAMES F. GRIFFITH |
| A. DOWNEY, KEVIN ALLEN, F. BRANNICK, DEVINE, E. DRADA, D. HASKINS, KEVIN HUNTER, N. LYDAY, ROB MARSHALL, FERNELL MCDONALD, LT. NICHOLSON, PHILLIPS, STORM, SULLIVAN COUNTY PROSECUTOR and YARBAR |
| 1:2017cv00194 |
| January 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
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
197
ORDER - GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 175 MOTION IN LIMINE, OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE, AND DENYING OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Motion in Limine (Dkt. [ 175]) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Regarding evidence or reference to employee disciplinary actions of the Defendants, or any current or former employee of the IDOC, the motion is granted. Regarding evidence or reference to the Plaintiff 's claims in this action that were dismissed at screening the motion is granted. The motion is denied regarding evidence of other lawsuits and claims involving the Defendants, the IDOC, or the State Indiana. The motion to exclude evidence of IDOC policies and procedures is denied. The motion regarding evidence of settlement offers or negotiations is granted. The motion regarding evidence that any or all Defendants could be indemnified is granted. The motion to exclude any mention tha t the Defendants' attorneys are employed by the State of Indiana is denied. The motion regarding asking the jurors to put themselves into the position of the Defendants is granted. The motion to exclude any suggestion that the Defendants or t heir employers were responsible for the spoliation of evidence is granted insofar as no suggestion shall be made before the jury that this evidence was disposed of intentionally or in bad faith. And, finally, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff th at his transfer to other housing was not a subsequent remedial measure. The Defendants' motion in limine on this topic is denied. Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Proposed Voir Dire Questions (Dkt. 187 ) is OVERRULED as to ques tions concerning whether a prospective juror believes a prisoner has a right to be safe from violence, other prisoners, and correctional officers and SUSTAINED as to questioning about negligence or carelessness. Defendants' Objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit List (Dkt. 188 ) is OVERRULED. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/5/2020. (NAD)
|
|
Filing
132
ORDER denying 99 Motion for Sanctions and granting 131 Notice regarding spoliation of video footage. The Court finds that though Defendants did have a duty to preserve video footage and failed to comply with such duty, the Plaintiff has not met his burden to show, nor can the Court infer, that the Defendants acted in bad faith(REDACTED). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 4/15/2019 (dist made) (CBU) Modified on 4/15/2019 (GD).
|
|
Filing
124
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 112 Motion to Reconsider Parts of Order at Docket No. 104 . SEE ORDER. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 2/28/2019. (SWM)
|
|
Filing
84
ORDER granting 71 Motion to Compel discovery. Defendants Phillips, Haskins, Drada, Yarber, Lyday, and Devine are ORDERED to provide complete and unequivocal responses to Plaintiff's First Request for Interrogatories No.'s 4-6 on or before October 2, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/20/2018 (dist made) (CBU)
|
|
Filing
40
ENTRY - Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, dkt. 21 is DENIED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1), Defendants shall have through December 26, 2018, in which to respond to the Court's proposal regarding summary judgment and Mr. Griff ith will have fourteen days to reply to any response. Mr. Griffith's Motion to Stay the Decision on the Pending Motion for Summary Judgment, dkt. 36 , is in light of this Entry DENIED as moot. Mr. Griffith's Motion to Compel, dkt. 37 , is DENIED because discovery on non-exhaustion issues was stayed pending the Court's resolution of the exhaustion issue. Once the exhaustion issue is fully resolved, a pretrial schedule will issue and the parties may commence discovery. See entry for details Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/4/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ)
|
|
Filing
20
ENTRY - Accordingly, Defendants shall have through June 1, 2017, in which to either 1) file a dispositive motion in support of the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit, 2) notify the Court that this affirmative defense is not amenable to resolution through a dispositive motion, or 3) notify the Court that defendants will not pursue the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust. If a dispositive motion is filed, plaintiff shall have twenty-eight (28) days in which to respond. Defendants shall then have fourteen (14) days in which to reply. Except for activities associated with the development and resolution of the Defendants' affirmative defense that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action, or any other matter directed by the Court, any other activities or deadlines in the action are stayed. Discovery on the issue of exhaustion is allowed. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 4/26/2017.(JLS)
|
|
Filing
9
Entry denying 8 Motion to Maintain Document Under Seal. For these reasons, the plaintiff's motion to seal the records and proceed as John Doe [dkt. 8 ] is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/21/2017. (JLS)
|
|
Filing
5
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 4 ] is granted. Given the foregoing, the following excessive force claim shall proceed. All other claims and defendants inc luding A. Downey, Kevin Allen, Fernell McDonald, Storm, Lt. Nicholson, Rob Marshall, Kevin Hunter, and the Sullivan County Prosecutor are dismissed. The clerk is directed to terminate these defendants on the docket. If the plaintiff believes that ad ditional claims were alleged in the complaint, but not identified by the Court he shall have through March 15, 2017, in which to identify those claims. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants. (See Entry.) Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/23/2017. (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.
