BRAND v. EMERSON
| CHRISTIAN BRAND |
| QUENTIN B. EMERSON |
| 1:2022cv01608 |
| August 15, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 First MOTION to Dismiss PURSUANT TO FRCP 41b, filed by Defendant QUENTIN B. EMERSON. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Returned Correspondence, #2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Dillon, Carol) |
| Filing 7 RESPONSE in Opposition re #5 MOTION for Default Judgment as to , filed by Defendant QUENTIN B. EMERSON. (Dillon, Carol) |
Filing 6
ORDER - SCREENING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; Plaintiff Christian Brand, a prisoner proceeding pro se, originally filed his complaint in this action in Morgan County. Defendant Dr. Quentin Emerson removed the case to this court because Mr. Brand's complaint asserts federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Although the filing fee was paid at the time of removal to this Court, 28 U.S.C. 1915A mandates that the court must review Mr. Brand's complaint prior to its proceeding. Based on our screening of Mr. Brand's complaint, we hold that he has sufficiently alleged a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Eighth Amendment. Any claim for injunctive relief must be advanced via a separate request in accordance with our Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/26/2022. *** SEE ORDER *** Copy Mailed. (CKM) Modified on 8/29/2022 (CKM).
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Default Judgment as to, filed by Plaintiff CHRISTIAN BRAND. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Envelope)(CKM) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Pro Se Appearance by Plaintiff CHRISTIAN BRAND. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (CKM) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. Distribution to plaintiff made via mail. (DRB) Modified on 8/16/2022 (DRB). |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol A. Dillon on behalf of Defendant QUENTIN B. EMERSON. (Dillon, Carol) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from MORGAN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, case number 55D02-2207-MI-001101, filed by QUENTIN B. EMERSON. (Filing fee $402, receipt number AINSDC-7235187) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - State Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - State Court Record, #3 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Dillon, Carol) |
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
| Search for this case: BRAND v. EMERSON | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: CHRISTIAN BRAND | |
| 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: QUENTIN B. EMERSON | |
| Represented By: | Carol A. Dillon |
| 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.
