JOHNSON v. RAND et al
| CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL JOHNSON |
| LEE RABENSTINE and MARK RAND |
| 1:2018cv01611 |
| May 25, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 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
4
Order Granting In Forma Pauperis Status, Screening Complaint, Dismissing Deficient Claims, and Ordering Consolidation of Viable Claims Pursuant to Rule 42(a)I. Plaintiff Christopher Michael Johnson's motion for leave to proceed without prepay ing fees or costs, Dkt. No. 2 , is granted. (2) all "claims" for shooting with intent to kill are dismissed; (3) Fourth Amendment civil rights claims against defendants Mark Rand and Lee Rabenstine shall proceed; (4) this action shall b e consolidated with case number 1:18-cv-01088-JMS-TAB, upon completion of the next described action; (5) plaintiff Christopher Johnson, no later than June 25, 2018, shall file in Johnson v. Sibley, case number 1:18-cv-01088-JMS-TAB, a motion to am end his complaint, with a proposed amended complaint in compliance with Section V of this Order; and (6) the clerk is directed to file a copy of this Order in case number 1:18-cv-01088- JMS-TAB. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/1/2018. (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.
