GIST v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al
KARIM O. GIST |
CHARLES LOCKETT, OFFICER SWAN, OFFICER WHEELER, HARVEY CHURCH, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and HECTOR J. JOYNER |
2:2011cv00275 |
October 12, 2011 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Terre Haute Office |
William T. Lawrence |
William G. Hussmann |
Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 21 Entry Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Captain Hector J. Joyner, Officer Wheeler, and Officer Swan 16 is granted. Claims against the Bureau of Pris ons, Associate Warden Harvey Church, and Warden Charles Lockett were dismissed in the Entry of January 30, 2012, and are dismissed with prejudice. The court construes the complaint as not asserting a claim against Andrew Rupsak because the plainti ff failed to clarify his intention as to that individual as directed in the Entry of January 30, 2012. Judgment consistent with this Entry and with the Entry of January 30, 2012, shall now issue. The clerk shall update the docket to reflect the plaintiff's current address according to the Bureau of Prison website, at the USP Big Sandy. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/9/2012. (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.