HOUSTON v. MCCORKLE

HOUSTON v. MCCORKLE

Plaintiff:	WAYNE HOUSTON
Defendant:	RICHARD A. MCCORKLE
Case Number:	1:2017cv03310
Filed:	September 19, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge:	Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 25, 2019	Filing 62 Order Denying Summary Judgment - On New Year's Day 2017, a detainee in the Henry County Jail struck Plaintiff Wayne Houston in the face, breaking Houston's nose and orbital bone and opening a gash over his eye, requiring multiple surgeri es. Houston alleges claims for deprivation of his constitutional rights and for negligence against Defendant Henry County Sheriff Richard A. McCorkle in his official and individual capacities. McCorkle moves for summary judgment ECF No. 43 on Ho uston's constitutional claims. The Court ordered--and the parties submitted--supplemental briefing on whether the Fourth Amendment's "objective unreasonableness" standard governs Houston's claims and, if so, whether McCork le is entitled to summary judgment on that standard. McCorkle's motion--now fully briefed and ripe for decision is denied for the following reasons. *SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 6/25/2019. (JDC)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 25, 2019

Filing 62 Order Denying Summary Judgment - On New Year's Day 2017, a detainee in the Henry County Jail struck Plaintiff Wayne Houston in the face, breaking Houston's nose and orbital bone and opening a gash over his eye, requiring multiple surgeri es. Houston alleges claims for deprivation of his constitutional rights and for negligence against Defendant Henry County Sheriff Richard A. McCorkle in his official and individual capacities. McCorkle moves for summary judgment ECF No. 43 on Ho uston's constitutional claims. The Court ordered--and the parties submitted--supplemental briefing on whether the Fourth Amendment's "objective unreasonableness" standard governs Houston's claims and, if so, whether McCork le is entitled to summary judgment on that standard. McCorkle's motion--now fully briefed and ripe for decision is denied for the following reasons. ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 6/25/2019. (JDC)

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: HOUSTON v. MCCORKLE
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: WAYNE HOUSTON
Represented By:	Jon C. Abernathy
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 ]
Defendant: RICHARD A. MCCORKLE
Represented By:	Caren L. Pollack
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?