NORTH v. LOCKETT et al
| JEFFREY NORTH |
| BIXLER, BRACE, TRACY HEISER, CHARLES L. LOCKETT, TAMMY MCDANIAL, KARL NORRIS, PUTHOFF, RUPSKA, SCHARFF and WILLIAM E. WILSON |
| 2:2013cv00427 |
| December 12, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| 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
171
Entry Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Mr. North has not identified a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims in this case and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter o f law. Therefore, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, dkt. 159 , is GRANTED. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/18/2017. (DW)
|
|
Filing
123
Entry Discussing Motion to Suspend Pretrial Activity, Dismissing Certain Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings - For the reasons explained below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. 108 ] is denied without prejudice and the alternative partial motion to dismiss [dkt. 108 ] is granted. The motion to suspend pretrial activity [dkt. 120 ] is granted to the extent that the remaining claims in this action shall be resolved after counsel has been successfully recruited to r epresent the plaintiff in this action. The motion to suspend all pretrial activity [dkt. 120 ] is granted to the extent that the remaining claims in this action shall be resolved after counsel has been successfully recruited to represent the plaint iff in this action. The motion to dismiss [dkt. 108 ] is granted and Counts One, Three, Four, and Five are dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(c). The motion for summary judgment [dkt. 108 ] is denied without prejudice pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Fed eral Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to the remaining counts. The Court shall recruit counsel. After counsel is recruited, a status conference will be set by the magistrate judge to direct the further development of the three claims remaining in this action with input from counsel. (See Entry.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/21/2016. (BRR)
|
|
Filing
5
Entry Discussing Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Jeffrey North, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida, filed this civil action against ten defe ndants based on events which occurred while he was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana ("USP-Terre Haute"). The motion for preliminary injunction [dkt. 2] is denied without prejudice. Certain claims a nd defendants must be dismissed while others will proceed as submitted. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), to issue process on the defendants. Process shall consist of a summons. Because plaintiff is proceeding under th e 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.) Copies distributed pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/16/2013. (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.
