DAVIS v. FOO et al
| STEPHEN DAVIS |
| FOO, KNIGHT and JONES |
| 1:2022cv00252 |
| February 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Submission of Proposed Subpoena, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC) |
| Filing 12 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC) |
Filing 11
ORDER Dismissing Complaint and Providing Opportunity to Amend Complaint. Mr. Davis's motion to request records, dkt. #5 , and motion for request for committee, dkt. #9 , are denied as premature. If Mr. Davis files a viable amended complaint, the Court will screen it. If the amended complaint survives screening, the Court will issue a scheduling order to facilitate discovery after the defendants respond to the amended complaint. Mr. Davis can state the factual basis of his claims in his amended complaint without attaching documents in evidence at this stage of litigation. Mr. Davis's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #8 , and motion to enter evidence, dkt. #10 , are granted. His complaint is dismissed, and he shall have through April 8, 2022, in which to file an amended complaint. The clerk is directed to include a copy of the prisoner civil rights complaint form along with the plaintiff's copy of this Order. (See Order). Copies to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/8/2022. (Attachments: #1 Prisoner Complaint Form). (MAC)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION to Enter Evidence, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelope). (MAC) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Request for Committee, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC) |
| Filing 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Pro Se Appearance, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). (MAC) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Request Records, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN DAVIS. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Envelope)(LBT) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Your civil rights complaint has been received. You shall have through March 14, 2022, in which to correct the deficiencies as follows: You must either pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate that you lack the financial ability to do so by filing a motion for leave to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee (in forma pauperis). Copies to plaintiff by U.S. Mail. (Attachments: #1 Form motion for IFP) (MEH) |
| Filing 3 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 U.S. Mail. (MEH) |
| Filing 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (LMK) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against FOO, JONES, KNIGHT, filed by STEPHEN DAVIS. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(LMK) |
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.
