WARREN v. CORIZON INC. et al
| MARC T. WARREN |
| DICK BROWN, CHAVEZ, CORIZON INC. and SWARTZENGRUBBER |
| WVCF (Court Use Only) |
| 2:2017cv00116 |
| March 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 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
46
Entry Denying Motion for Summary Judgment, Warning Defendants' Counsel Regarding Future Legally Frivolous Arguments, and Directing Further Proceedings - For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' motion for summary jud gment 38 is denied. The current record before the Court shows that Mr. Warren is entitled to summary judgment on the defendants' affirmative defense of exhaustion because the undisputed evidence shows that the administrative remedy pr ocess was unavailable to Mr. Warren. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 56(f)(1), the Court gives the defendants notice of its intent to grant summary judgment in Mr. Warren's favor on this issue. The defendants have through November 29, 2017, in which to respond to the Court's notice. Alternatively, they may withdraw their affirmative defense by this date (SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/13/2017. (DW)
|
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.
