HERZ v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA et al
| CAROLYN WENDY HERZ, PH.D and CAROLYN WENDY HERZ |
| ORA HIRSCH PESCOVITZ, LESLIE PAGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, JOHN HANLEY, JUDGE MARC ROTHENBERG, THOMAS BUSCH, GERALD BEPKO, CAROLYN H. SRIVASTAVA, EVAN GOODMAN, DENNIS SASSO, SANDY SASSO, JONATHAN ADLAND, HILLARY CLINTON, BILL CLINTON, HAL BROXMEYER and MARC ROTHENBERG |
| 1:2021cv02315 |
| August 24, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| Mario Garcia |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1442 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
CLOSED JUDGMENT - The Court having this day made its Order directing the entry of final judgment, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/8/2021. (MAC)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING FINAL JUDGMENT. This action was removed from the Marion Superior Court on August 24, 2021, where it had been filed under Cause No. 49D06-2108-CT-026209 on August 3, 2021. See Filing No. #1 (citing 28 U.S.C. 1442(a) (civil actions brought against the United States, its officers, or agencies may be removed to the United States District Court)). Plaintiff Carolyn Wendy Herz is the same person as Carolyn H. Srivastava, a restricted filer in this Circuit and in this Court as explained in this Court's order of August 25, 2021. Filing No. #6 . That Order stayed these proceedings and directed Plaintiff to show cause no later than September 8, 2021 why this action should not be dismissed because restrictions have been imposed on her ability to file papers in all federal courts in the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiff filed a response #8 on September 6, 2021, which entirely fails to demonstrate that (a) her restricted filer status as referenced above has been altered or does not apply to the present action, (b) she could prosecute this action through the filing of documents in light of her restricted filer status, or (c) there is any reason to delay entry of final judgment. The Court finds that the orders making Plaintiff a restricted filer prevent her from filing documents in this case. Because Plaintiff cannot proceed, this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. To prevent further abusive litigation by Plaintiff, this dismissal is with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to correct the spelling of defendant Rothenberg's name on the docket. Judgment consistent with this Order shall now issue. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/8/2021. (MAC)
|
| Filing 8 RESPONSE Objecting, re #6 Order to Show Cause, filed by Plaintiff CAROLYN WENDY HERZ. (MAC) |
| Filing 7 Submission of State Court Records Received from the Marion County Superior Court Cause No. 49D06-2108-CT-026209. (MAC) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND STAY PROCEEDINGS. Until Plaintiff has satisfied her obligations both before the Seventh Circuit and before this Court, it is not possible for her to litigate the instant claims. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has through September 8, 2021 to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed because restrictions have been imposed on her ability to file papers in federal courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, other than a response to this show cause order, Plaintiff is prohibited from delivering any documents to the Clerk for filing, and must not attempt to present materials or information to the Court in an indirect fashion, such as by sending a fax or an email to the Court or its personnel except as explicitly provide by General Orders of this Court. To do so would be a violation of the orders of the Court of Appeals and of this Court. Any and all proceedings in this matter are STAYED until the Court acts, either upon Plaintiff's response to this order, or upon Plaintiff's failure to respond if no response is made. (See Order). Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/25/2021.(MAC)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Reassignment of Case to Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia. Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore is no longer assigned to this case. Please include the new case number, 1:21-cv-02315-JMS-MG, on all future filings in this matter. (LMK) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Clerk is directed to randomly reassign case and notify parties of newly assigned Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/25/2021. (GD)
|
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (LMK) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Shelese M. Woods on behalf of Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA. (Woods, Shelese) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marion Superior Court, case number 49D06-2108-CT-026209, filed by UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 State Court Record State Court Docket, Complaint, Appearance, Sasso Appearance, Summonses, Amended Complaint, Certified Mail Return, & Plaintiff's Certificate of Issuance of Summons, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Woods, Shelese) |
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.
