WELLS v. BEDWELL et al
| QUANARDEL WELLS |
| LISA BOCK, DANIEL BEDWELL, RANDY VANFLEET, ARAMARK CORPORATION, TRAVIS DAVIS and JOHN SCHILLING |
| 1:2019cv03036 |
| July 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| James R Sweeney |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Documents for Service by IDOC - re #8 NOTICE of Lawsuit & Waiver Issued by Clerk, #2 Complaint, #7 Entry. (John Schilling) (JDC) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Lawsuit & Waiver Issued by Clerk to 1) Daniel Bedwell; 2); Lisa Bock; 3) John Schilling; 4) Aramark Corporation (LAB) (JDC) |
| Filing 7 ENTRY SCREENING COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS - The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendants Daniel Bedwell, Lisa Bock, John Schilling, and Aramark Corporation in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the complaint filed on July 22, 2019 docket #2 , applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Entry. ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS*** Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 9/16/2019.(JDC) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE to Pro se Litigant - The following information is provided to pro se litigants to inform them about rules and procedures governing how they communicate with the Court. (JRT) |
| Filing 5 ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #3 , is granted. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is waived because the plaintiff has no assets and no means by which to pay a partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(4). Accordingly, no initial partial filing fee is due at this time. Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, "[a]ll [28 U.S.C.] 1915 has ever done is excuse pre-payment of the docket fees; a litigant remains liable for them, and for other costs, although poverty may make collection impossible." Abdul- Wadood v. Nathan, 91 F.3d 1023, 1025 (7th Cir. 1996). The Court will screen the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915A in a separate, future Entry. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 7/24/2019. (JDC) |
| Filing 4 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff QUANARDEL WELLS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - Certificate of Prisoner Account, #2 Cover Letter)(REO) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against ARAMARK CORPORATION, DANIEL BEDWELL, LISA BOCK, TRAVIS DAVIS, JOHN SCHILLING, RANDY VANFLEET, filed by QUANARDEL WELLS. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter)(REO) |
| Filing 1 CONSENT to Prisoner E-Service by QUANARDEL WELLS located at PENDLETON CF. Pursuant to General Order 2013-1, documents submitted by QUANARDEL WELLS to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E-Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (REO) |
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.
