LEWIS v. GRAY et al
| PAUL LEWIS |
| C. FIELDS, KIM GRAY and MD ALFRED TALENS |
| 2:2010cv00200 |
| July 30, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
100
ENTRY - denying 98 Motion to give order. The plaintiff's motion to give order requests that the court order that he be moved from administrative segregation to the general population. He believes he is being held in administrative segre gation because he filed this lawsuit. It appears that through said motion the plaintiff is attempting to assert a new due process claim in this action. Such a claim has no factual or legal connection to the remaining claim and does not belong in this case. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/11/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
86
Entry Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment - granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted with respect to claims against Dr. Talens and denied with respect to claims against Nurse Gray. See Entry. No partial final judgment will issue as to the claims resolved in this Entry. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/15/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
42
Entry Concerning Selected Matters; The plaintiff's renewed motion for the appointment of counsel 36 is denied in part and granted in part. The motion is denied for the same reasons given in the Entry of February 10, 2011, and is grante d to the extent that if the case goes to trial, the court will attempt to recruit counsel to assist the plaintiff at that stage of the litigation. The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 37 is denied as unnecessary. The plai ntiff has been granted in forma pauperis status as far as the filing fee is concerned in this case. In addition, the court acknowledges the plaintiff's indigency and that he asserts that he does not have the means to hire private counsel. The re quests for production of documents to non-parties [38, 39, 40] do not demonstrate compliance with Rule 34(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore are of no effect. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/12/2011. ( Copy to plaintiff via U. S. mail) (VS)
|
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.
