MOON v. MARBERRY et al
| DARNELL W. MOON |
| ERIC HOLDER, C. GILBERT, GALLON, FREDERICKS, B. ENGLISH, S. ECKERT, D. SCOTT DODRILL, DENICE DENHAM, R. CROOKS, COX, SEAN COSTELLO, N. COLE, HARVEY G. CHURCH, VICKIE BOYER, J. BEIGHLEY, BEAVER, R. BASKERVILLE, D. HOLSTON, HORN, HECTOR JOYNER, THOMAS R. KANE, HARLEY LAPPIN, CHARLES LOCKETT, MARY-ELLEN DOUCETTE LUNDSTRUM, HELEN J. MARBERRY, MOSLEY, BONITA MOSLEY, MIKE NALLEY, AMBER NELSON, PARKER, MARVIN PITT, E. RARDIN, STEVEN J. REISER, THERESA COZZA K. RHODES, KEVIN WASSON and C. WILLIAMS |
| 2:2014cv00067 |
| March 12, 2014 |
| 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
44
ORDER granting Defendants' 32 Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Moon is no longer part of the FCC Terre Haute Blue/Gold Program, nor is he confined in a federal penitentiary. Moon's APA challenge is not an action for damages for past conduct, bu t is a request for prospective injunctive relief.1He has requested as relief that this Court order the BOP to undergo a "notice and comment" review of the Blue/Gold Program. Because Mr. Moon is no longer subject to the program, there is no current controversy and his claims are moot. This action is dismissed. Judgment consistent with this Entry and the Entry of October 8, 2014, shall now issue. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. **SEE ORDER** Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/14/2015. (AH)
|
|
Filing
37
ENTRY Discussing Motion for Reconsideration and Amended Complaint. In the 18 Entry of May 13, 2014, the Court dismissed each of Moon's Bivens claims as barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Moon seeks reconsideration of this ruling arguing that his claims are not time-barred because the statute of limitations was tolled during the time that he was exhausting his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. In these circumstances, he has alleged fa cts sufficient to establish a statute of limitations defense and has pled himself out of court. His 20 motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. Moon's 22 Amended Complaint is now subject to the screening requirement of 28 U.S.C. &# 167; 1915A. Moon's Amended Complaint raises essentially the same claims as those raised in his original complaint. For the reasons discussed above, each of Moon's Bivens claims must be dismissed as time-barred. Moon's 31 motion requesting screening is granted consistent with these rulings.Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/8/2014. (AH)
|
|
Filing
18
Entry Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Darnell Moon brings this complaint pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act and the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). All defendants except Charles E. Samuels are terminated as defendants in this action. If Moon believes that he has asserted any additional viable claims which were not recognized in this Entry, he should notify the Court of th is fact by no later than June 10, 2014. The clerk is directed to issue summons to the defendant and to other officials designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2). The plaintiff's second motion for copies of summonses [dkt 16] is granted to the extent that summons will be issued to the lone remaining defendant. The plaintiff's second motion requesting the BOP to provide addresses [dkt 17] is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/13/2014. (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.
