PRITT v. CORRECT CARE SERVICES et al
| STEVEN W. PRITT |
| AGENTS, BRIAN CARTER, H CLARK, HEATHER MICHELLE CLARK WORKERS, CORRECT CARE SERVICES, JENNIFER EIDSON, EMPLOYEES MARION COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, PAMELA HANSEN, LAUREN KANNAPLE, MEGAN MATHEWS, NURSE 2705, LAURA POLAND, POSSIBLE DOE'S, MELISSA RIGNEY, TRACY ROBERTS, SERVANTS, ALEXANDER SHELTON and HADLEY WHEATCRAFT |
| 1:2017cv02664 |
| August 7, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Matthew P. Brookman |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
129
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION - The motion for clarification, dkt. 127 , is GRANTED consistent with this Order. (See Order). Copy to Steven W. Pritt via U.S. mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 7/20/2020. (JDH)
|
|
Filing
123
ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. 95 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Ms. Andrews, Nurse Clemons, and Nurse Poland. The claims against these defendants ar e dismissed and the clerk shall terminate these defendants on the docket. The motion is DENIED as to Nurse Carter, Nurse Clark, Nurse Hansen, Nurse Kannaple, Nurse Roberts, Nurse Wheatcraft-Hadley, and CCS. Mr. Pritt's claims that these defe ndants violated his Eighth Amendment rights while he was in the Jail between December 10-17, 2015; July 12-21, 2016; and February 17-21, 2017, shall continue to proceed in this case. Because the Court considered the arguments in Mr. Pritt's surreply as it deemed appropriate, the motion to strike the surreply, dkt. 120 , is DENIED and the motion for leave to file surreply, dkt. 121 , is GRANTED. The Court will direct further proceedings, including a settlement conference and trial if necessary, through a separate order. If Mr. Pritt wants the Court to recruit counsel to represent him, he should file a motion on the Court's form. The clerk shall include a form motion for assistance with recruiting counsel with his copy of this Order. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 6/1/2020. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (Attachments: # 1 form motion for assistance with recruiting counsel) (DWH)
|
|
Filing
30
ENTRY - Clarifying Defendants' Names, Directing Re-Issuance and Service of Process, and Directing Plaintiff to Respond; Plaintiff Steven W. Pritt, proceeding pro se, named several defendants in his civil rights lawsuit. Only seven defendants have appeared and answered, with the remaining process documents returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff shall report no later than April 6, 2018, the status of his proposed defendants discussed in Section 1, second paragraph. The failure to timely r espond to this Entry may result in the dismissal of the proposed defendants without further notice. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to re-issue process to defendants Heather Michelle Clark, Laura Poland, Jennifer Eidson, Brian Carter, and Robin Wheatcraft-Hadley in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. 1, applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), the January 9, 2018, screening entry, dkt. 15, and this Entry. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 3/26/2018. Copies Mailed (CKM)
|
|
Filing
15
ENTRY - Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings; The plaintiff's allegations are sufficient to state Eighth Amendment medical claims against Nurse Pamela Hansen, Nurse Debra Darlene Clemons, Tracy Roberts, H. Clark, Megan Andrews, Nurse Alexander Shelton, Megan Matthews, Lauren Kannaple, Laura Poland, Jennifer Eidson, Nurse Brian Carter, Hadley Wheatcraft, Melissa Rigney, and Heather Michelle Clark. He also states an Eighth Amendment policy or practice claim against Correct C are Solutions.However, the plaintiff's claims against unknown John Doe or Jane Doe defendants must be dismissed. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Nurse Pamela Hansen, Nurse Debra Darlene Clemons, Tracy Roberts, H. Clark, Megan Andrews, Nurse Alexander Shelton, Megan Matthews, Lauren Kannaple, Laura Poland, Jennifer Eidson, Nurse Brian Carter, Hadley Wheatcraft, Melissa Rigney, Heather Michelle Clark, and Correct Care Solutions in the manner specified by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint (docket 1), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that the defendants named in the above paragraph are the only defendants in this action. The clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that defendant "Correct Care Services" is properly named "Corr ect Care Solutions."The plaintiff shall have through January 29, 2018, in which to notify the Court whether he wishes the Court to sever the misjoined claim identified above into an additional case. If the plaintiff fails to notify the Court regarding the misjoined claim by the above date, it will be considered abandoned and will be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/9/2018. Copies Mailed. (CKM)
|
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.
