STEWART v. DANIELS et al
| JESSE J. STEWART |
| CHARLES DANIELS, ONE UNKNOWN CORRECTIONS OFFICER and RICHARD W. SCHOTT |
| 2:2015cv00309 |
| October 6, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
| None |
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
16
Entry Discussing Additional Post-Judgment Motions - The plaintiff's 13 motion to reconsider the dismissal of his due process claim under Rule 59(e) is granted in part and denied in part, such that the dismissal has been reconsidered, but su ch reconsideration does not lead to a change in the ultimate dismissal of that claim. The plaintiff's 14 second motion to supplement his response to show cause order is denied because it is identical to the motion to supplement filed on December 1, 2015, which was denied because it relied on a case that has no bearing on the facts of this case. (See Entry) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/23/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)
|
|
Filing
9
Entry Dismissing Amended Complaint and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The plaintiff has not shown that the Court's analysis was incorrect nor has he provided any legally sufficient basis for allowing his claims to proceed. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Entry of November 2, 2015, the complaint and amended complaint are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/24/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)
|
|
Filing
6
Entry Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dismissing Complaint,and Directing Further Proceedings - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 5 is granted. It is not feasible to assess an initial partial filing fee at this t ime. Notwithstanding the foregoing ruling, the plaintiff still owes the $350.00 filing fee. The plaintiff's motion to amend 4 is granted to the extent that the claim for relief of costs and attorney fees, if any, and the jury demand are noted. For the reasons discussed above, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff shall have through December 1, 2015, in which to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. If the plaintiff fails to show cause or seek leave to amend, the action will be dismissed for the reasons set forth in this Entry. (See Entry) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/2/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)
|
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.
