BUSTILLO v. RARDIN et al
| FERNANDO BUSTILLO |
| E. RARDIN and E. SHOEMAKER |
| 2:2013cv00192 |
| May 20, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner Petitions - 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
63
ENTRY - Mr. Bustillo's 59 motion for protective order and 47 motion/suggestions in connection with scheduled Pavey hearing are each denied. The defendants' 56 motion requesting the sanction of dismissal is granted in part consistent with the following: The Pavey hearing will be rescheduled, but Mr. Bustillo will be permitted only to cross-examine the defendants' witnesses and present argument to support his claims. He will not be permitted to present evidence or testimon y at the hearing. Mr. Bustillo is further ordered to pay the defendants' reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in attempting to conduct the deposition. The defendants shall have through July 15, 2014, in which to provide an accounting of those fees. The Pavey hearing will be rescheduled in a separate order. **SEE ENTRY** Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/2/2014. (ADH)
|
|
Filing
19
ENTRY Discussing Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Bustillo's request for a preliminary injunction [dkt. 5] is denied for the following reasons: First, the defendants have not yet appeared and Bustillo has not shown that he has provided notice to the defendants of his request for an injunction as required by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Next, the relief Bustillo seeks is in the form of a "mandatory injunction" that would change the status quo and order the defendants to perform specific acts. Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 F.3d 883, 892 (7th Cir. 2011). "A mandatory injunction imposes significant burdens on the defendant and requires careful consideration of the intrusiveness o f the ordered act, as well as the difficulties that may be encountered in supervising the enjoined party's compliance with the court's order." Id. Here, granting Bustillo's request for injunctive relief would involve this Court in the management of the prison where Bustillo is confined and would improperly violate the admonition that federal district courts are not to allow themselves to become "enmeshed in the minutiae of prison operations." Lewis v. Casey, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 2182 (1996)(citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979)). The Court will not order such relief in the circumstances presented here. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/13/2013. Motions terminated: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by FERNANDO BUSTILLO. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.(NMT)
|
|
Filing
14
Entry Discussing Motion for Reconsideration - Bustillo's motion for reconsideration [dkt. 13] is granted in part and denied in part. Bustillo's claim that he was provided an inadequate mattress is amended by interlineation to include th e allegations in the motion for reconsideration. Bustillo shall serve a copy of this Entry on counsel for the defendants within 10 days of being notified of the appearance of counsel for the defendants. Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/25/2013. (RSF)
|
|
Filing
10
Entry Discussing Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Fernando Bustillo, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary (USP) in Terre Haute, Indiana, alleges violations of his civil rights. Certain claims will be dismissed and othe rs will proceed. The following claims shall proceed: * Bustillo's claims that defendants denied him postage stamps, envelopes, paper, writing supplies, which interfered with his ability to participate in litigation; * Bustillo's claim tha t the defendant confiscated and destroyed outgoing mail to family and friends; and * Bustillo's claim that the defendants denied him adequate toilet paper. * Bustillo's claim for injunctive relief based on his allegation that the defen dants have housed him with a psychologically disturbed inmate. * Bustillo's claim that the defendants have subjected him to racial discrimination. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), to issue process to defendants E. Rardin and E. Shoemaker. Process shall consist of a summons. Because plaintiff Bustillo is proceeding under the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), personal service is required. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/11/2013.(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.
