LITTLER et al v. LEMMON et al
PHILLIP LITTLER and AARON YOUNG |
RICHARD BROWN, BRUCE LEMMON and JEAN WATKINS |
2:2016cv00175 |
May 19, 2016 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Terre Haute Office |
Denise K. LaRue |
William T. Lawrence |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 195 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING TRIAL - A bench trial was held in this case on May 14, 2019. The Court, having considered the evidence submitted at trial, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Pla intiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the Policy. The issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief stating that the Policy violates the First Amendmen t, as well as injunctive relief prohibiting the future application of the Policy. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Policy violates First Amendment. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of the Defendant on all of the Plaintiff's claims. (See Order.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/10/2019. (DMW) |
Filing 157 ORDER DISCUSSING INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT WATKINS - Mr. Litter has failed to meet the "clearly established" standard sufficient to defeat the defendant's qualified immunity defense to his claim. The qualified immu nity defense seeks to balance "the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officers from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably." M s. Watkins made a reasonable but mistaken judgment about whether she was entitled to confiscate and destroy Young's letter based on her belief he was a restricted individual. Accordingly, she is entitled to qualified immunity. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time. (See Order.) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/13/2019. (DMW) |
Filing 110 ENTRY Discussing Plaintiff's Motion to Compel - Therefore, pursuant to the authority set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court dismisses the individual capacity claims against Bruce Lemmon and Richard Brown for failure to state a clai m. Mr. Littler's motion to compel Bruce Lemmon to respond to 80 , is denied. The clerk is instructed to update the docket to reflect that Richard Brown and Bruce Lemmon have been dismissed from this action (SEE ENTRY). Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 9/20/2017.(DW) |
Filing 4 ENTRY Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Insufficient Claims and Directing further proceedings. ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff shall have through June 27, 2016, in which to either pay the $400.00 f iling fee for this action or demonstrate that he lacks the financial ability to do so. The First Amendment claim against Jean Watkins may proceed. The clerk is instructed to update the docket to remove the names of plaintiff Aaron Young and def endants Bruce Lemmon and Richard Brown. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims which are dismissed in this Entry. The clerk is designated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to issue process to defendant Jean Watkins in the manner specified by Rule 4(d). Copies Mailed. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 5/25/2016. (MAC) |
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.