JONES v. TAYLOR et al
RUFUS EDWARD JONES |
J ZOLZ, CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, CATHERINE TAYLOR, CHESSER DORA, TIMOTHY R. WESTERHOF, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CORE CIVIC MARION COUNTY JAIL II, STATE OF INDIANA, COREY SHINN, JENNA MARIE PILIPAVICH and MANSOUR |
1:2019cv04746 |
December 2, 2019 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Tim A Baker |
James Patrick Hanlon |
Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re #11 Notice of Appeal. - for Court of Appeals Use Only. (LBT) |
Filing 12 PARTIES' SHORT RECORD re #11 Notice of Appeal - Instructions for Attorneys/Parties attached. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff.) (LBT) |
Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #8 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, #7 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DWH) |
Filing 10 MOTION for Change of Judge, filed by Plaintiff RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDH) |
Filing 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, MANSOUR, JENNA MARIE PILIPAVICH, COREY SHINN, CATHERINE TAYLOR, TIMOTHY R. WESTERHOF, J ZOLZ, filed by RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelope). (MAC) |
Filing 8 ENTRY DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL - For the reasons explained above, the plaintiff is simply not one of the many pro se prisoners that requires the assistance of counsel. The plaintiff is competent to litigate this action himself. Accordingly, the motion for counsel, dkt. #3 , DENIED (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/13/2020. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH) |
Filing 7 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE - The plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #2 , is granted. Mr. Jones has failed to state a claim against any named defendant. His complaint is therefore dismissed. He will have through January 14, 2020, to show cause why judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. Failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (See Order). Copy to Rufus Edward Jones via U.S. mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/3/2020. (JDH) |
Filing 6 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DWH) |
Filing 5 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. Copy to plaintiff by US Mail. (MEH) |
Filing 4 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (AKH) |
Filing 3 MOTION for Assistance with Recruiting Counsel, filed by Plaintiff RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelope). (AKH) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Inmate Account Summary, #2 Envelope). (AKH) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, CORE CIVIC MARION COUNTY JAIL II, CHESSER DORA, MANSOUR, JENNA MARIE PILIPAVICH, PUBLIC DEFENDER, COREY SHINN, STATE OF INDIANA, CATHERINE TAYLOR, TIMOTHY R. WESTERHOF, J ZOLZ, filed by RUFUS EDWARD JONES. (No fee paid with this filing). (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelope). (AKH) |
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.