SYKES v. ELLIOT et al
| MARRICCO A. SYKES |
| WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE, MR. ELLIOT, WARDEN KASNER, WARDEN FRANCISCO QUINTANA, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE and CENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE OF BOP |
| 2:2011cv00185 |
| July 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 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
31
ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters. Plaintiff's 28 29 30 Additional Post-Judgment Motions are Denied. The court adds that the plaintiff's claim for damages as a result of the adjudication in this action is not properly appended to the action, especially following the issuance of final judgment. The plaintiff is aware of his new lawsuit docketed as No. 1:12-cv-12-RLY-DML and may proceed as directed and permitted in that case. A copy of the motions referred to in this Order shall be included with the plaintiff's copy of this Order. (copy to plaintiff via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/25/2012. (MAC)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER denying 26 Motion for relief; a copy of the motion referred to is to be included with this order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/3/2012. (SMD)
|
|
Filing
15
ENTRY and Order Dismissing Action. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/28/2011.(SMD)
|
|
Filing
9
ENTRY Dismissing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The complaint is dismissed based on the violation of Rule 8. The dismissal of the complaint will not in this instance result in the dismissal of the action.The plaintiff shall have throu gh November 8, 2011, in which to file an amended complaint. Proceedings other than as specified above are stayed until the amended complaint is filed. Motion to amend brief, motion for injunction, motion requesting subpoena 5 . Motion to accept de claratory statement 6 . Motion for examination, motion for injunction and motion for appointment of counsel 7 Motion for inspection, motion requesting court to relate inspected documents, motion requesting court for summons and motion for Entry [ 8]. Each of these motions [5-8] is denied as premature. As discussed above, the complaint in this action has been dismissed and the court is awaiting the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint which complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/11/2011. (copy to plaintiff via us 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.
