BUSTILLO v. ROYER et al
| FERNANDO BUSTILLO |
| T. JENSEN, HEATHER MATTA, G. ROGERS, TODD ROYER and J. SHERMAN |
| 2:2015cv00098 |
| April 3, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| William T. Lawrence |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
6
ENTRY - The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt 5] is granted, as payment of a partial filing fee is not feasible at this time. Defendants T. Jensen, G. Rogers, and J. Sherman are dismissed as defendants in this ac tion. The following claims will proceed: Mr. Bustillo's access-to-courts claim against defendant Mr. Royer, stemming from Mr. Royer's alleged denial of stamps to Mr. Bustillo, which resulted in Mr. Bustillo's inability to pursue an appeal in Bustillo v. Harvey, No. 2:13-cv-00120-JMS-WGH, and Bustillo v. Rardin, No. 2:13-cv-00192-JMS-WGH. Mr. Bustillo's Eighth Amendment and retaliation claims against defendants Mr. Royer and Ms. Matta, stemming from Mr. Royer's instruction to Ms. Matta not to provide Mr. Bustillo with necessary medication and Ms. Matta's failure to provide Mr. Bustillo that medication. Copies sent as directed. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/7/2015.(AH)
|
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.
