LIFFLER v. BROWN
| PHILLIP LIFFLER |
| RICHARD BROWN, JOHN DOE and LITTLEJOHN |
| 2:2016cv00234 |
| June 20, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
198
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT, DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS MOOT - For the reasons stated above, Mr. Littler's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. No. 189 , is granted. The clerk is directed to docket pages 5-11 of Dkt. No. 189 as the second amended complaint. Due to the amendment, the defendants' motions for summary judgment, Dkt. Nos. 107 and 117 , are denied as moot. The Court will screen the second amended complaint in a separate order (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/14/2018. (DWH)
|
|
Filing
81
Entry Denying Motion for Summary Judgment - The Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. 64 , is denied for the reasons set forth above. If the Medical Defendants wish to withdraw their affirmative defense in lieu of having a Pavey hearing, they must do so by April 17, 2017. The Court will attempt to recruit volunteer counsel to assist the plaintiff with the Pavey hearing. The Magistrate Judge is requested to hold a pre-Pavey status conference once the Court has recruited counsel to assist the plaintiff with the Pavey hearing. The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery regarding the issue of exhaustion, dkt. 77 , is denied without prejudice. The plaintiff will be given an opportunity to conduct discovery, if it is required, prior to the Pavey hearing (SEE ENTRY). Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 4/11/2017. (DW)
|
|
Filing
17
Entry on Motion to Compel, Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint, and Motion for Preliminary Injunction - The Court authorized the plaintiff to conducted limited discovery for the sole purpose of learning the identity of correctional officer s who allegedly assaulted him. The plaintiff's motion to compel raises three issues regarding this discovery, and it [dkt. 16 ] is granted in part and denied in part. First, the plaintiff asserts that he wanted the identities of not just tho se who participated in the cell extractions at issue, but also the identities of everyone who was involved in the procedures that occurred after the cell extractions, such as a subsequent strip search and medical treatment. Because this request i s within the limited scope of authorized discovery--in that the request is made to identify potential defendants--the plaintiff's motion to compel is granted to the extent that the defendant must respond to this discovery request by October 6 , 2016. Second and third, the plaintiff requests that the defendant be ordered to provide the sex of each correctional officer involved and states that the account of each defendant's conduct is too vague. Both of these requests are outside the scope of the limited discovery authorized by the Court to identify the appropriate defendants for this action so that the plaintiff could file an amended complaint. While the information the plaintiff seeks may be relevant to the merits of hi s claims, it is unnecessary to identify the defendants in his complaint. Accordingly, these requests are denied without prejudice. The plaintiff's motion to file an amended complaint [dkt. 13 ] is denied without prejudice. Instead, the plaint iff must file an amended complaint after he receives the ordered discovery, and the amended complaint shall name all of the defendants the plaintiff wishes to sue in this action. The amended complaint must be filed no later than October 21, 2016. The plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief [dkt. 14 ] is denied. The entirety of the plaintiff's motion is his request that, in light of his pleadings, that he be immediately transferred out of Wabash Valley Correctional Facility to another facility. The Court does not have the authority to order the plaintiff to be transferred to another correctional facility under the circumstances alleged. (See Order.) Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/22/2016. (BRR)
|
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.
