ISBY-ISRAEL v. LEMMON et al
| AARON ISBY-ISRAEL |
| RICHARD BROWN, BEVERLY GILMORE, JACK HENDRIX, STANLEY KNIGHT, BRUCE LEMMON, DUSTY RUSSELL, JULIE SNIDER, JERRY SNYDER and JAMES WYNN |
| 2:2012cv00116 |
| May 15, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Both |
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
135
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Court is mindful that "prolonged confinement in administrative segregation may constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment (and therefore the Fourteenth), depending on the duration and nature of the segregation and whether there were feasible alternatives to that confinement." Townsend, 759 F.3d at 690 (internal quotation omitted). And prior to trial the Court considered the duration of Mr. Isby-Israel's confinement in administr ative segregation to be stunning, but the Court has found no case under similar circumstances where duration alone, coupled with a prisoner's refusal to participate in correctional programming, supported a finding of a constitutional violati on. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor, and the plaintiff shall take nothing from his second amended complaint. Final judgment shall now issue consistent with this Entry and with the Entry of July 30, 2013 (dismissing defendants Lemmon and Knight). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/25/2015. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 75 Motion for Leave to Depose Defendants. The plaintiff has not explained why his written interrogatories were insufficient to obtain needed information or why he could not have served requests for admissions unde r Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion for leave to depose defendants is denied to the extent he seeks leave to take depositions without having to incur the costs. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/16/2014. (AH) (Main Document 81 replaced on 9/16/2014) (AH).
|
|
Filing
65
Entry Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Further Proceedings - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's due process claim [dkt. 52] is grante d. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time. This ruling leaves pending the Eighth Amendment claim. The parties shall have through July 23, 2014, in which to propose a schedule for resolving this matter, whether by settlement, trial or further dispositive motion. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/24/2014. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
41
Entry Concerning Selected Matters - The plaintiff's request to vacate the ruling of March 27, 2013 [Dkt. 33], striking the supplemental complaint, is denied. Plaintiff's "motion for relief from order of sua sponte dismissal and improper substitution of amended complaint" [Dkt. 38] is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/22/2013. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
12
Entry Discussing Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - The 26-page amended complaint is subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Any claims thought to be brought by plaintiff Aaron Isby-Israel on behalf of ot her inmates are dismissed without prejudice. The claim that the defendants interfered with the grievance process in order to prevent the plaintiff from filing a lawsuit is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Any claims based on international law are dismissed. The plaintiff shall have through October 1, 2012, in which to file a statement of remaining claims. The statement of remaining claims should identify the circumstances associated with the alleged vi olation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and Due Process rights and for each such alleged violation, identify what role any of the defendants played in personally causing the alleged violation. If the plaintiff intended to advance additional claims he should restate such claims in his statement of remaining claims. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/10/2012.(RSF) Modified on 9/11/2012 (RSF).
|
|
Filing
10
Entry Discussing Selected Matters - granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/13/2012. (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.
