NEAL v. COLEMAN et al
| ROBERT DAVID NEAL |
| K. SEIRVELD, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE, CHRISTOPHER A. GREINER, THOMAS R. KANE, CHARLES L. LOCKETT, F TIMOTHY COLEMAN, MICHAEL L. STEPHENS, C. PURDUE and JOHN OLIVER |
| 2:2012cv00040 |
| February 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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
17
Entry and Notice - Final judgment has been entered in this action. Until the plaintiff's motion for further processing was filed with the clerk on April 13, 2012, the post-judgment filings have been made by a non-party, David Nelson. The r elief sought in those filings has been denied, and notifications of such rulings have been returned undelivered. Based on the foregoing, therefore, the motion for further processing 16 is of no effect and any relief sought through such motion is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/19/2012. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
3
ENTRY and Notice; complaint is dismissed; but the dismissal of the complaint will not dismiss the action. Plaintiff shall have through 4/1/12 to file an amended complaint. Proceedings other than those specified herein are STAYED. (Plaintiff served via US Mail) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/6/2012.(SMD)
|
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.
