RICHARDSON v. BROWN et al
| MARCUS RICHARDSON |
| KEVIN GILMORE, STEVEN ROBERTSON and DICK BROWN |
| 2:2011cv00161 |
| June 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
142
Entry Discussing Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment - This is a civil rights action brought by Marcus Richardson ("Richardson") against Kevin Gilmore and Steven Robertson. The action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The remaining defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment [dkt 129] is granted. This now resolves all claims against all parties. Judgment consistent with this Entry and with the Entry of September 11, 2013, shall now issue. The tri al setting of August 12, 2014, is vacated. Further pretrial conferences are vacated. The plaintiff's motion to correct telephonic order [dkt 140] is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/2/2014.(RSF)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER - The Court GRANTS IN PART the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 95 Defendant Brown is entitled to summary judgment regarding Richardson's claim that Brown violated Richardson's due process rights by allegedly not rul ing on his administrative appeal. Because that is the only claim that Richardson alleges against Defendant Brown, Defendant Brown is DISMISSED from this litigation. No final judgment with respect to Defendant Brown shall issue at this time. Const ruing plaintiff's complaint liberally, however, Richardson also makes claims against Defendants Robertson and Gilmore regarding the conditions of his solitary confinement and for First Amendment retaliation. The Defendants did not move for summary judgment on those claims; thus, they will proceed and a separate scheduling order will issue regarding them. (See Order.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/11/2013. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
68
Entry Discussing Selected Matters - Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment 66 is denied. The motion to require the defendants to file a response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 67 is denied because the motion for summary judgment to which the referenced motion pertains is no longer pending. That motion was denied on August 31, 2012. Directions in Part III of the Entry of September 6, 2012, remain in effect. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
63
Entry Discussing Selected Matters - The plaintiff's request for a copy of the docket sheet 60 is granted. A copy of the requested material shall be included with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the pleadings 59 is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/31/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER denying 38 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 40 Motion to Stay discovery; denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration for appointment of counsel; denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration for order pertaining to discovery. See Entry. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/14/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER denying plaintiff's 26 Motion for Default Judgment; denying plaintiff's 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 29 Motion for extension of time to 4/25/2012 for parties to complete written discovery and discovery requests ; denying plaintiff's 30 Motion for discovery. (S.O) (copy to plaintiff via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/30/2012. (MAC)
|
|
Filing
11
ENTRY Dismissing Claim and Directing Further Proceedings; Richardson alleges, in part, that his placement in solitary confinement violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because prison disciplinary proceedings do not implicate the double jeopardy clause, this Fifth Amendment claim is dismissed. The remaining claims alleged in the amended complaint shall proceed. The clerk is designated to issue and serve process on the defendants. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/6/2011. (copy to Plaintiff and defendants via U.S. mail)(NKD)
|
|
Filing
5
ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters; The plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is granted. The assessment of even an initial partial filing fee is not feasible at this time. The complaint is now subject to the screening requ irement of 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b). The court will direct the further development of any claim which is not dismissed. The parties will be notified when this determination has been made. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/21/2011. (Copy to plaintiff via U.S. mail) (NKD)
|
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.
