TUGGLE v. REAGLE et al
Plaintiff: BRYAN P TUGGLE
Defendant: DENNIS REAGLE, CHISTOPHER ERTEL, VINCE STANLEY, ANDREW BAGIENSKI, WILLIAM CALLAHAN, ROBERT E. CARTER, JR. and INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Case Number: 1:2022cv00838
Filed: April 29, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Sarah Evans Barker
Referring Judge: Matthew P Brookman
2 Judge: James Patrick Hanlon
3 Judge: Doris L Pryor
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 24, 2022 Filing 18 Documents to be Sent via Electronic Notice TO: 1) Robert E. Carter, Jr., 2) Warden Dennis Reagle, 3) Indiana Department of Correction - re #17 NOTICE of Lawsuit & Waiver Issued by Clerk, #15 Order, #6 Amended Complaint Electronic Notice to IDOC. (DWH)
June 23, 2022 Filing 17 NOTICE of Lawsuit & Waiver Issued by Clerk TO: 1) Robert E. Carter, Jr., 2) Warden Dennis Reagle, 3) Indiana Department of Correction. (DWH)
June 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT, DISMISSING INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS, SEVERING CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING SERVICE OF PROCESS - The clerk is directed to terminate Chistopher Ertel, Vince Stanley, Andrew Bagienski, and William Callahan as defendants on the docket. These defendants were not named in Mr. Tuggle's amended complaint. The clerk is directed to add as defendants, Robert E. Carter, Jr. and the Indiana Department of Correction. Warden Dennis Reagle also remains a defendant in this action. Mr. Tuggle's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and state law negligence claims related to the failure to provide safe water shall proceed against IDOC Commissioner Carter and Warden Reagle. His claims related to violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act shall proceed against the IDOC and IDOC Commissioner Carter. All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or are identified as misjoined as explained in Part III of this Order. The clerk is directed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to IDOC Commissioner Carter, Warden Reagle, and the IDOC in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Process shall consist of the amended complaint and attached exhibits (dockets 6 and 6-1), applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 6/23/2022. Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. (DWH)
June 20, 2022 Filing 16 MOTION to Amend #2 Complaint, filed by Plaintiff BRYAN P TUGGLE. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Amended Complaint, #2 Cover Letter)(CBU)
June 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER granting #13 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIMETO PAY INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE - Mr. Tuggle shall have through July 1, 2022, to pay the assessed initial partial filing fee of Four Dollars and Seventy-Seven Cents ($4.77), as set forth in the Court's Order on his in forma pauperis status on May 17, 2022. See dkt. #10 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 6/14/2022. (AAS)
June 10, 2022 Filing 13 MOTION for Extension of Time, filed by Plaintiff BRYAN P TUGGLE. (CKM)
June 2, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE of Reassignment of Case to Judge James Patrick Hanlon and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman. Judge Sarah Evans Barker, Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor is no longer assigned to this case. Please include the new case number, 1:22-cv-00838-JPH-MPB, on all future filings in this matter. (JSR)
June 2, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Clerk is directed to reassign case to Judge James P. Hanlon and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman for all further proceedings. This case is related to 1:21-cv-03120-JPH-MPB. Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Doris L. Pryor no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 6/2/2022. (LDH)
May 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER - The plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, dkts. [ #3 ] and [ #9 ], are granted to the extent that the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Four Dollars and Seventy-Seven Cents. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). The plaintiff shall have through June 13, 2022, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. The plaintiff is informed that after the initial partial filing fee is paid, he will be obligated to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income each month that the amount in his account exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 is paid. 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). After the initial partial filing fee is received, a collection order will be issued to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's custodian, and the Court will screen the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Copy to Finance Department. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/17/2022. (SWM)
May 9, 2022 Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff BRYAN P TUGGLE. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - ISR Resident Activity Report, #2 Existing ES Consent Form)(AKH)
May 3, 2022 Filing 8 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Your civil rights complaint has been received. You shall have through June 3, 2022, in which to correct the deficiencies as follows: Your motion to proceed in forma pauperis cannot be ruled on because you have not submitted a copy of the transaction history associated with your institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action. (JRT)
May 2, 2022 Filing 7 MEMO IN SUPPORT re #6 Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff BRYAN P TUGGLE. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(CKM)
May 2, 2022 Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by BRYAN P TUGGLE. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(CKM) (Main Document 6 replaced on 5/3/2022) (CKM).
May 2, 2022 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. (JRT)
April 29, 2022 Filing 4 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (JSR)
April 29, 2022 Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff BRYAN P TUGGLE. (JSR)
April 29, 2022 Filing 2 COMPLAINT against ANDREW BAGIENSKI, WILLIAM CALLAHAN, CHISTOPHER ERTEL, DENNIS REAGLE, VINCE STANLEY, filed by BRYAN P TUGGLE. (No fee paid with this filing) (JSR)
April 29, 2022 Filing 1 CONSENT to Prisoner E-Service by BRYAN P TUGGLE located at PENDLETON CF. Pursuant to General Order 2013-1, documents submitted by BRYAN P TUGGLE 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. (JSR)

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 this case: TUGGLE v. REAGLE et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: BRYAN P TUGGLE
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: DENNIS REAGLE
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CHISTOPHER ERTEL
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: VINCE STANLEY
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: ANDREW BAGIENSKI
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: WILLIAM CALLAHAN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: ROBERT E. CARTER, JR.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?