LACEY v. NIELSEN et al
| JOHN JAY LACEY |
| JACK BLAND, JEFF HECK, SUSAN KINNEY, MICHAEL T NIELSEN and CARL JOE RADEE |
| WVCF (Court Use Only) |
| 1:2018cv00120 |
| January 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
158
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - The motion for summary judgment, dkt 138 , is granted. The defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Final Judgment in accordance with this Order, the Screening Order, dkt. 5 , and the Order granting summary judgment to defendant Michael Nielson, dkt. 50 , shall now issue. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/28/2020.(JDH)
|
|
Filing
50
Entry Discussing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment - In this civil action, plaintiff John Jay Lacey, an Indiana prisoner incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, alleges that, while he was incarcerated at the Boone Count y Jail, his First Amendment rights were violated when the defendants denied him access to religious materials and objects, failed to provide him Halal meals, and retaliated against him when he complained about these issues to the ACLU. Presently p ending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants on April 27, 2018. Dkt. 23 . The defendants' motion argues that the claims alleged against them are barred under the exhaustion provision of the Prison Litiga tion Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, that requires a prisoner to first exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in court. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment, dkt. 23 , is granted as to Mr. Lacey's claim of retaliation against Sheriff Neilsen and denied as to his First Amendment free exercise claims against the other defendants. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time. Because the retaliation claim was the only c laim proceeding against Sheriff Neilsen, the clerk is directed to terminate him as a defendant in this action. The remaining defendants shall have through September 28, 2018, in which to notify the Court in writing that they have either abandoned their affirmative defense of exhaustion or request a hearing to resolve the factual dispute detailed above. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/29/2018. (APD)
|
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.
