SAVAGE v. HENDRICK COUNTY JAIL et al
| BRANDON CELM JOSEPH SAVAGE |
| HENDRICK COUNTY JAIL, DANIEL MAXWELL, JOSEPH LAW, CALDWELL and JOSEPH CAIN |
| 1:2019cv01965 |
| May 16, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| James R Sweeney |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
Order Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Directing Payment of Initial Partial Filing Fee, and Dismissing Amended Complaint - This action was dismissed on July 1, 2019, when plaintiff Brandon Celm Joseph Savage failed to show cause by June 20, 2019, why his action should have been allowed to proceed. The Court had screened Mr. Savage's original complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in the June 26, 2019 screening order, the July 1, 2019, amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Final judgment has already been entered, see dkt. #6 , and this action remains closed. Finally, even though this action has been dismissed, Mr. Savage is still responsible for the filing fee. The July 1, 2019, renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #7 , is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1)(A), an initial partial filing fee of two dollars and sixty-eight cents ($2.68) is assessed and shall be paid to the clerk of the district court no later than August 5, 2019. Although Mr. Savage is excused from pre-paying the full filing fee, he still must pay the three hundred and fifty dollar ($350.00) filing fee pursuant to the statutory formula set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2) when able. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b) (1) ("the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of a filing fee."). A collection order may be entered separately. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 7/8/2019. (JDC)
|
| Filing 9 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by BRANDON CELM JOSEPH SAVAGE. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by BRANDON CELM JOSEPH SAVAGE. (Attachments: #1 attachment, #2 Envelope)(JDC) |
| Filing 7 Renewed MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff BRANDON CELM JOSEPH SAVAGE. (Attachments: #1 trust account history, #2 Envelope)(JDC) |
|
Filing 6
CLOSED JUDGMENT. FINAL JUDGMENT - The Court having this day made its Order directing the entry of final judgment, now enters FINAL JUDGMENT against petitioner and for respondent. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. 1915A. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 6/26/2019.(JDC)
|
|
Filing 5
Order Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Plaintiff Brandon Celm Joseph Savage, an inmate in the Indiana Department of Correction, filed this lawsuit against the Hendricks County Jail and three officials of the Jail. Mr. Savage's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied as not properly documented. Dkt. #4 . On screening the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, it was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The complaint either named a non-suable entity, did not allege any claim against a named defendant, or asserted facts against a defendant that did not state a federal civil rights claim. See dkt. #4 . Mr. Savage was allowed through June 20, 2019, in which to renew his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to show cause why this action should not be dismissed and final judgment entered. Id. Mr. Savage has not renewed his in forma pauperis motion and has not responded to the show cause order. The time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Court's screening order of May 23, 2019, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Final judgment consistent with this Order shall now enter. (Copy Plaintiff via U.S. Mail) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 6/26/2019. (JDC)
|
|
Filing 4
Order Denying Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Screening and Dismissing Complaint, and Allowing Plaintiff to Show Cause - Mr. Savage's May 16, 2019, complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No later than June 20, 2019, Mr. Savage shall pay the $400 filing fee or resubmit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis properly documented with a certified copy of his prison inmate trust account financial transactions for the six-month period preceding the filing of this lawsuit. Finally, Mr. Savage shall have through June 20, 2019, in which to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in Section IV of this Order, or file a motion to reconsider showing why the complaint should not have been dismissed and allowed to proceed. ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*** (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 5/23/2019. (JDC)
|
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff, BRANDON CELM JOSEPH SAVAGE. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DJH) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CALDWELL, HENDRICK COUNTY JAIL, JOSEPH LAW, DANIEL MAXWELL, filed by BRANDON CELM JOSEPH SAVAGE. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DJH) |
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 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.
