MAYO v. BURGESS et al
BRIANNA MAYO |
SHERIFF DUANE BURGESS, JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CHARLES J WARREN, III, TYLER KINTZELE, JAMES ISON, MARK MYERS, GREENWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT and CITY OF GREENWOOD |
1:2024cv00097 |
January 16, 2024 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Tim A Baker |
Tanya Walton Pratt |
Civil Rights: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
Both |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 11 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information. Consistent with Local Rule 5-3, Courtney Darcy hereby notifies the Clerk of the court of changed contact information. (Darcy, Courtney) |
Filing 10 ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: This case is assigned for a telephonic initial pretrial conference before United States Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on April 18, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. (Eastern Time). Parties shall participate in this conference by counsel. The information needed by counsel of record to participate in this telephonic conference will be provided by separate notification. The parties themselves may participate at their option. If a proposed Case Management Plan ("CMP") has not yet been filed, the parties are ordered to confer prior to the initial pretrial conference and prepare a proposed CMP. The CMP shall be in the format set forth in the model CMP's found on the Court's website (www.insd.uscourts.gov), shall comply with S.D.Ind.L.R. 16-1(b), and shall address discovery issues as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). (Please note that a separate Uniform Patent Case Management Plan is to be used for patent cases.) The parties shall file the proposed CMP no less than three business days prior to the pretrial conference. Filing of the plan will not automatically vacate the pretrial conference. The conference will remain set unless specifically vacated by the Court, which is unlikely. See Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 1/31/2024. (LF) |
Filing 9 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) with Jury Demand and Affirmative Defenses, filed by DUANE BURGESS, JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.(Paul, Daniel) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Courtney Lyn Abshire on behalf of Plaintiff BRIANNA MAYO. (Abshire, Courtney) |
Filing 7 Greenwood Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) with Jury Demand , filed by CITY OF GREENWOOD, GREENWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAMES ISON, TYLER KINTZELE, MARK MYERS.(Witte, Daniel) |
Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by John M. McLaughlin on behalf of Plaintiff BRIANNA MAYO. (McLaughlin, John) |
Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Mark Witte on behalf of Defendants CITY OF GREENWOOD, GREENWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, JAMES ISON, TYLER KINTZELE, MARK MYERS. (Witte, Daniel) |
Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (LF) |
Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (LF) |
Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J. Paul on behalf of Defendants DUANE BURGESS, JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. (Paul, Daniel) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marion County Superior Court No. 2, case number 49D02-2312-CT-050134, filed by JOHNSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DUANE BURGESS. (Filing fee $405, receipt number AINSDC-7982507) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit State Court Record Pleadings, #2 Exhibit State Notice of Removal, #3 Exhibit Consent to Removal, #4 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet)(Paul, Daniel) |
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.