THOMAS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
| RALPH THOMAS |
| FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and HARRELL WATTS |
| 2:2011cv00187 |
| July 22, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
143
Entry Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment And Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Plaintiff Ralph Thomas is a federal inmate currently serving a 65 year sentence at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana ("U SP-Terre Haute"). For all of the foregoing reasons, Thomas's claim for injunctive relief asserted against Defendant Dr. Wilson, in his official capacity, must fail, and this cause should be dismissed as a matter of law. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/9/2014. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
96
Entry Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - The defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt. 72] must be granted. The Court agrees with the defendants that the nature of the injunctive relief requested in this action requires that if this ca se is to move forward it can only do so against defendant Dr. William E. Wilson, M.D., in his official capacity. The claim against Dr. Wilson in his individual capacity is dismissed. Instead, the claim for injunctive relief shall be understood t o be brought against Dr. Wilson in his official capacity. The clerk is directed to amend the docket accordingly. The motion to reconsider the dismissal of Harrell Watts [dkt. 83] is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/17/2013. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER denying 77 Motion to Examine Person Under FRCP 35. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on 4/17/2013. (c/m) (NRN)
|
|
Filing
81
Entry Discussing Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction - The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 71 must be denied because the relief sought is outside the scope of th is civil action. The motion for preliminary injunction improperly raises new claims against Dr. Harvey who is not a defendant in this action, and improperly asserts claims based on events occurring after the commencement of this law suit. Nothing in this Entry should be understood to prohibit the plaintiff from initiating a new civil action regarding the claims raised in his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/2/2013. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
56
Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Dr. W. Wilson, Mr. A. Ndife, and Harrell Watts appear to be appropriate defendants from which the plaintiff could obtain the injunctive relief he seeks in his amended complaint. All other defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue process to defendants Dr. W. Wilson and Mr. A. Ndife. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/3/2012.(RSF)
|
|
Filing
49
Entry Directing Further Proceedings - The complaint at present fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The plaintiff shall have through April 18, 2012, in which to file an amended complaint in which he (1) asserts only the claim or claims for which he seeks injunctive relief, (2) identifies the injunctive relief he seeks, (3) presents a plausible claim for relief, and (4) explains h ow each of the defendants could be liable to him for the relief he seeks. Proceedings are stayed until the plaintiff files the amended complaint directed above and until the court assesses that pleading to determine what further order should issue. If an amended complaint is not filed as directed above the action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice to the parties. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/20/2012.(RSF)
|
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.
