BOYD v. DUGGER et al
| DEREK BOYD |
| JODIE DUGGER and RICHARD GASKIN |
| 1:2021cv03083 |
| December 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Matthew P Brookman |
| 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 February 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Derek Boyd - Plaintiff's custodian is directed to withhold sums from the inmate trust account of DEREK BOYD, 273507, and to forward such sums to the Clerk of this Court at 46 East Ohio Street, Room 105, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, consistent with paragraph 2 of this Entry. The appropriate cause number, 1:21-CV-03083-JRS-MPB, should be placed on each payment sent to the Clerk. Copy sent to distribution list via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 2/4/2022.(JRB) Modified on 2/4/2022 (JRB).
|
|
Filing 10
RECEIPT #IP077722 for partial filing fee in the amount of $2.80, paid by M. Hobbs via credit card on behalf of DEREK BOYD. (DJH)
|
|
Filing 9
ENTRY GRANTING #3 and #7 MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS - The Court created this action when it severed numerous claims misjoined in one complaint. This action is based on Derek Boyd's allegations regarding a failure to properly clean up blood following a fight at Plainfield Correctional Facility (PCF). In this entry, the Court grants Mr. Boyd's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his amended complaint. Because the action consists of one claim, and because it is frivolous, the Court dismisses the amended complaint and directs Mr. Boyd to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. Mr. Boyd's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, dkts. #3 and #7 , are GRANTED to the extent that he is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2.80. Mr. Boyd will have through February 28, 2022, to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. Mr. Boyd's complaint, dkt. #2 , is dismissed as frivolous. Mr. Boyd will have through February 28, 2022, to file an amended complaint or show cause why the Court should not dismiss this action and enter final judgment. If Mr. Boyd files an amended complaint, it must correct the deficiencies discussed in this entry. It must include the case number associated with this action, no. 1:21-cv-3083-JRS-MPB. It will completely replace the original complaint, and it will be screened pursuant to 1915A, so it must include all defendants, claims, and factual allegations Mr. Boyd wishes to pursue in this action. Failure to comply with these orders in the time provided may result in dismissal of this action without further warning or opportunity to show cause. (See Order). Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 1/31/2022. (AKH)
|
|
Filing 8
Proposed Summons submitted for issuance by the clerk as to JODIE DUGGER. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff DEREK BOYD. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(JDC)
|
|
Filing 6
CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by DEREK BOYD. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC)
|
|
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 distributed to Plaintiff via US Mail. (TMC)
|
|
Filing 4
MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH)
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Plaintiff, DEREK BOYD. (Attachments: #1 Certification of Inmate Trust Fund Account, #2 Envelope)(DJH)
|
|
Filing 2
COMPLAINT against JODIE DUGGER and RICHARD GASKIN, filed by DEREK BOYD. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A Tort Claims Notice, #2 Envelope)(DJH) Modified on 12/21/2021 (defendants) (DJH).
|
|
Filing 1
ENTRY Severing Misjoined Claims signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 12/20/2021 in Case No. 1:21-cv-2359-SEB-DML. The Clerk is directed to open three new civil actions in the Indianapolis Division consistent with the following: (1) The plaintiff will be Derek Boyd. (2) The Nature of Suit will be 555. (3) The Cause of Action will be 42:1983pr. 4. The clerk is directed to redocket the complaint (dkt. 1), the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2), and this entry in each new action. 5. This action and the three new actions will be shown on the docket as linked actions. 6. The assignment of judicial officers will be by random draw. 7. The defendants and subject matter of each new action will be: a. First Action: claims against (1) Mr. Johnson and (2) Muslim Officer for failing to intervene. b. Second Action: Eighth Amendment medical claims against (1) Nurse Mary Williams; (2) Wexford of Indiana, LLC; (3) Warden Tricia Pretorius; and (4) Richard Gaskin, Internal Investigations. c. Third Action: claims against Julie Dugger, Aramark Supervisor; and (2) Richard Gaskin, Internal Investigations, for failure to properly sanitize the area after the fight. In each new action, the Court will screen the complaint pursuant to 1915A, and Mr. Boyd will be required to pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. If Mr. Boyd does not wish to pursue one or more of the new actions, he may notify the Court that he wishes to voluntarly dismiss the appropriate case. See Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).(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.
