BRYANT v. WARDEN et al
Plaintiff: ELMER BRYANT
Defendant: WARDEN, C. A. PENFOLD and MR. L. GLENN
Case Number: 1:2018cv03324
Filed: October 29, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Tim A Baker
Referring Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 26, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 26, 2018 Filing 11 Mail Returned as undeliverable (Return to Sender; Released). #10 Closed Judgment, #9 Entry sent to ELMER BRYANT at 5501 South 1100 West, Westville, IN, 46391. (NAD)
December 10, 2018 Filing 10 FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. PRO. 58 - The Court having this day made its Entry directing the entry of final judgment, now enters FINAL JUDGMENT, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/10/2018.(NAD)
December 10, 2018 Filing 9 Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The plaintiff was given the opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Mr. Bryant filed a response arguing that this action should not be dismissed because the sanctions, including a loss of good time credit, were vacated. Dkt. 8-1, pp. 11-12. However, it is not clear from Mr. Bryant's response if the guilty finding in IYC 16-11-0098 was vacated or whether just the good time credits were restored. Moreover, it is not clear from the response whether the non-grievous sanctions imposed in IYC 16-11-0098 were also vacated. The non-grievous sanction included a transfer to a more secure facility, a 45 day phone and J Pay restriction, one-year disciplinary segregation, and $439.04 in restitution for medical expenses. However, these types of sanctions do not create an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Accordingly, this action is now dismissed for the reasons discussed in the Entry of November 1, 2018, and this Entry. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/10/2018.(NAD)
November 29, 2018 Filing 8 RESPONSE to Court Order to Show Cause, re #7 Entry, filed by Plaintiff ELMER BRYANT. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Various documents)(NAD)
November 1, 2018 Filing 7 Entry - Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Denying Motion for Counsel, Dismissing Complaint, and Directing Plaintiff to Show Cause. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #2 , is granted. Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, the plaintiff still owes the entire filing fee. The plaintiff's motion for assistance with recruiting counsel, dkt. #3 , is denied as premature. The complaint has not been screened, and the defendants have not been served. The plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for the reason set forth above. The plaintiff shall have through November 30, 2018, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/1/2018.(NAD)
October 29, 2018 Filing 6 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (MAC)
October 29, 2018 Filing 5 Case transferred in from District of Indiana Northern; Case Number 3:18-cv-00872. Original file copy of transfer order and docket sheet received.
October 29, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER: Court TRANSFERS this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 10/29/2018. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (tc) [Transferred from Indiana Northern on 10/29/2018.]
October 23, 2018 Filing 3 MOTION for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel by Plaintiff Elmer Bryant. (nae) [Transferred from Indiana Northern on 10/29/2018.]
October 23, 2018 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Prisoner Trust Account Ledger attached) by Plaintiff Elmer Bryant. (nae) [Transferred from Indiana Northern on 10/29/2018.]
October 23, 2018 Filing 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT with 0 copies of summons forms and 0 copies of USM-285 forms and with Jury Demand against L Glenn, C A Penfold, Warden, filed by Elmer Bryant. (Returned copy with case number to Bryant)(nae) [Transferred from Indiana Northern on 10/29/2018.]

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: BRYANT v. WARDEN et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: WARDEN
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: C. A. PENFOLD
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: MR. L. GLENN
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 ]
Plaintiff: ELMER BRYANT
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?