MERCADO v. PERSON
Plaintiff: ANGELITO C MERCADO
Defendant: DR. MICHAEL PERSON and MICHAEL PERSON
Case Number: 1:2018cv03610
Filed: November 19, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referring Judge: Doris L Pryor
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 4, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL SCHEDULE AND DISCUSSING DISCOVERY IN PRISONER LITIGATION: This Order sets the schedule for how this action shall proceed. Part I sets forth the pretrial deadlines. Part II discusses various aspects of discovery. Facilitating the discovery process can be difficult, and this Order is issued in an effort to help explain and streamline the process for the parties. The parties should carefully read this Order. *SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*. Dispositive Motions due by 8/5/2019. Discovery due by 7/5/2019. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/4/2019.(NAD)
January 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER - denying #8 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court has not yet entered an entry of default against Dr. Person. Additionally, Dr. Person has articulated good cause for the delay of in filing an answer in this action. Moreover, once it was brought to Dr. Person's counsel's attention, quick action was taken within hours to correct the error. Finally, as articulated in the answer, Dkt. #9 , Dr. Person has provided a meritorious defense to the complaint. Because Mercado has not been prejudiced by the delay, the Court will allow the case to proceed on the merits instead of entering default judgment against Dr. Person. Accordingly, Mr. Mercado's motion for default judgment, Dkt. #8 , is DENIED. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/4/2019. (NAD)
January 3, 2019 Filing 10 RESPONSE in Opposition re #8 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendant, filed by Defendant MICHAEL PERSON. (Dillon, Carol)
January 3, 2019 Filing 9 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) with Jury Demand , filed by MICHAEL PERSON.(Dillon, Carol)
January 2, 2019 Filing 8 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendants, filed by Plaintiff ANGELITO C MERCADO. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC)
December 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER - DENYING #6 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT. The plaintiff's motion to amend must be denied because the proposed amendment is futile. Mr. Mercado's claims against nurses for following the medical directive of Dr. Person must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief is granted. Accordingly, Mr. Mercado's motion for leave to amend complaint, Dkt. #6 , is denied. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/10/2018. (NAD)
November 30, 2018 Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint, filed by Plaintiff ANGELITO C MERCADO. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Complaint, #2 Envelope)(NAD)
November 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER SCREENING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - The claims remaining in this case are Mercado's: Fourteenth Amendment deliberately indifference claim against Dr. Person and Indiana state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Dr. Person. The Court has additionally taken or directed the following actions: (1) Mercado's claim of racial discrimination is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (2) Dr. Person has until December 14, 2018, to file an Answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/27/2018.(NAD)
November 20, 2018 Filing 4 CIVIL COVER SHEET , filed by Defendant MICHAEL PERSON. (Dillon, Carol)
November 20, 2018 Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH)
November 19, 2018 Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol A. Dillon on behalf of Defendant MICHAEL PERSON. (Dillon, Carol)
November 19, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from BARTHOLOMEW SUPERIOR COURT 1, case number 03D01-1810-CT-5626, filed by MICHAEL PERSON. (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0756-5162058) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A; Complaint, #2 Exhibit B; Case Details, #3 Exhibit C; Cover Sheet)(Dillon, Carol)

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: MERCADO v. PERSON
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DR. MICHAEL PERSON
Represented By: Carol A. Dillon
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: MICHAEL PERSON
Represented By: Carol A. Dillon
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: ANGELITO C MERCADO
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?