MILLS v. SPEEDWAY POST OFFICE et al
| ROBERT MILLS |
| SPEEDWAY POST OFFICE, KEVIN YOUNG and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2023cv02206 |
| December 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Tim A Baker |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Documents for service by USM - re #8 Entry, #9 Summons Issued as to USA, #7 Amended Complaint, #1 Complaint. Electronic notice to USM-C.(KAA) |
| Filing 9 Summons Issued as to USA - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KEVIN YOUNG, (Attachments: #1 USM 285 Form)(KAA) (Main Document 9 replaced on 2/1/2024 to include second endorsed summons) (KAA). Modified on 2/1/2024 (KAA). |
Filing 8
ENTRY SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DIRECTING SERVICE - Mr. Mills' Amended Complaint fails to cure the identified deficiencies with respect to Mr. Mills' constitutional claims, intimidation claim, and harassment claim against Young. Accordingly, those claims must be dismissed. However, the Amended Complaint identifies the alleged members and general purpose of the civil conspiracy (Filing No. 7 at 1). Accordingly, the Court has not determined that Mr. Mills' civil conspiracy claim against Young must be dismissed, so that claim shall proceed. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a proper Rule 12 motion.Additionally, the clerk is directed to change the docket text for Filing No. #7 from "Amended" to "Supplemental" Complaint. Because Mr. Mills is proceeding in forma pauperis, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) requires the Court to order service for Mr. Mills. Accordingly, the Clerk is designated to issue process to Defendants United States of America and Kevin Young. Further, the Clerk is directed to terminate the Speedway Post Office as a party and add the United States of America as a defendant. Copies mailed per Distribution. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/31/2024.(KAA)
|
| Filing 7 SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT against SPEEDWAY POST OFFICE, KEVIN YOUNG, filed by ROBERT MILLS.(LBT) Modified on 2/1/2024 per Dkt. #8 (KAA). |
| Filing 6 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by ROBERT MILLS. (LBT) |
|
Filing 5
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SCREENING COMPLAINT, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Having screened the Complaint, the Court finds it is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint by no later than Friday, January 12, 2024. If no amended complaint is filed by that date, this action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth above. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the Court will conduct a jurisdictional screening of that new pleading. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/14/2023 (Copy mailed to Plaintiff). (LBT)
|
| Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (CCG) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (CCG) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff ROBERT MILLS. (CCG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against SPEEDWAY POST OFFICE, KEVIN YOUNG, filed by ROBERT MILLS. (No fee paid with this filing) (CCG) (Main Document 1 replaced on 12/8/2023) (CCG). |
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.
