COLEMAN v MARBERRY et al
| MONROE L. COLEMAN |
| HECTOR JOYNER, HARLEY LAPPIN, HELEN J. MARBERRY, ANDREA MCPHERSON, KIMBERLY MOORE, MULLINS, ANDREW NDFIE, NEAL, MICHAEL NELLEY, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, PARTIN, RUSH, DELBERT G. SAYERS, RICHARD W. SCHOTT, HATTIE SIMS, MR. SWIFT, KELLY WESTINGHOUSE, WARDEN WILEY, ERIC WILSON, DEBBIE BURTON, ROBERT ERWIN, IVY FINENSTADT and DENNIS GAYMON |
| 2:2011cv00261 |
| October 3, 2011 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
55
ORDER granting 53 Motion for Clarification. The Entry of September 10,2012, severed the medical care claims asserted against Ms. Ndfie. All other claims understood to be alleged in the fourth amended complaint are discussed further in this Entry. Order denying 54 Motion to Dismiss 2:12-cv-273-WTL-WGH. The filing is not appropriate for resolution in this action and is therefore denied. Copy mailed to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/5/2012. (NS)
|
|
Filing
52
Order Severing Misjoined Claims and Directing the Opening of New Civil Action - The fourth amended complaint violates the joinder of claims limitation of Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Coleman's claim of unconstitutional medical care provided by defendant Ms. Ndfie is distinct from the claims alleged against the other defendants. The former claim is improperly joined in one action with the latter. The claim of unconstitutional medical care provided by Ms. Ndfie i s severed from the remaining portion of the action. The clerk shall open a new civil action from the Terre Haute Division. The newly opened action shall consist of the claim of unconstitutional medical care provided by Ms. Ndfie. A copy of this E ntry shall also be docketed in the newly opened action, which the clerk may note on the docket in this case as a linked action. Consistent with the determination and rulings made in this Entry, the claim severed from this action is dismissed wi thout prejudice. Andrew Ndfie, who the court treats as a misnomer for the defendant Ms. Ndfie referred to in this Entry, shall be terminated as a defendant in this action. (See Order.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/10/2012.(RSF)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time to file third amended complaint is granted. The third amended complaint filed on December 12, 2011, is considered timely filed. Plaintiff has until February 21, 2012 to file a fourth amended complaint incorporating only properly related claims. Proceedings other than as specified above are stayed until further order. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/23/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
41
ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - The transferor court dismissed all claims except those against the Terre Haute defendants and then transferred the claims against the Terre Haute defendants to this District. The clerk shall terminate on the docket the remaining defendants. The plaintiff shall have through December 8, 2011, in which to file a third amended complaint, wherein only claims against the Terre Haute defendants shall be asserted. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/23/2011. (Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.)(JD)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
