LAMBRIGHT v. GRAGE et al
| KRISTOPHER LAMBRIGHT |
| AIDOO, B. BENNETT, R. CRAWFORD, CRAIG GRAGE, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, G. ROSEBERY, UNNAMED FOOD SERVICE SUPERVISOR and UNNAMED MAIL ROOM SUPERVISOR |
| WESTVILLE CF (Court Use Only) |
| 1:2018cv01569 |
| May 23, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Doris L. Pryor |
| 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
78
ORDER denying 55 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 76 Motion to file a belated surreply. The defendants have until 1/24/2020, to respond to the Court's proposal. Alternatively, defendants may withdraw their affirmative defense by this date. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/8/2020. (CBU)
|
|
Filing
6
Entry Screening and Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's access to the courts First Amendment claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff states that the Dekalb County matter was a clerical error and summarily dismissed but that had he had access to the library he would have been able to correct the error sooner. This claim must be dismissed because it does not "'contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting al l the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under some viable legal theory. The plaintiff's third claim that his First Amendment rights were violated because he was not provided a kosher diet is dismissed. These retaliation claims a re dismissed because the factual allegations fail to set forth anything beyond speculation that these defendants tampered with his mail. Speculation and guesswork that defendants "most probably" violated an inmate's rights under the constitution is insufficient to state a claim. In addition, the Indiana Department of Correction is dismissed as a defendant because the Eleventh Amendment immunity bars suits for damages against states and their agencies. For these reasons, th e unnamed food service manager and the unnamed mail room supervisor are dismissed as defendants. Because the claims have been dismissed against them, defendants Grage, Bennett, Rosebery, Crawford, Aidoo, unnamed food service supervisor, unnamed ma il room supervisor, and the Indiana Department of Correction are dismissed as defendants in this action. Because the Court has been unable to identify a viable claim for relief against any particular defendant, the complaint is dismissed for failur e to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance lead to the dismissal of the action at present. Instead, the plaintiff shall have through June 29, 2018, in which to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/6/2018. (JDC)
|
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.
