STOLTZFUS et al v. HUTCHINS et al
| JOHN RIEHL and JOHN STOLTZFUS |
| GEOFFREY CANFIELD, SHAWN CLOVER, JUSTIN COLE, BILL COOK, COUNTY OF PARKE STATE OF INDIANA, STEVEN ANDREW CVENGROS, DOES 1-25, STACY FELDHAKE, CHRISTOPHER E. FISHER, JASON FRAZIER, CORY HUTCHINS, STACY JEFFRIES, RANDALL KNEELAND, ZACHARY LANCASTER, DAVID LEE, NATALIE MCCALL, PARKE COUNTY, PARKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, PARKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, ED ROACH, CINDY ROHR, RODNEY SMITH, KEVIN R. STALKER, STATE OF INDIANA, SAMUEL A. SWAIM, RUSSELL WHITE, DARLA WIRTH and BENJAMIN WOOD |
| 2:2017cv00359 |
| July 28, 2017 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
55
ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Joint Motion for Stay of Proceedings, 52 . This matter is stayed pending resolution of the Parke County criminal proceedings against Mr. Stoltzfus (61C01-1706-CM-00153) and Mr. Riehl (61C01-1706-CM-00154). Defendants are ORDERED to provide the Court with notice within seven days of the resolution of the criminal proceedings, so that this matter may move forward accordingly (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/6/2018. Copy to Plaintiffs via US Mail. (DW)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER - For the reasons described herein, the only remaining claims are: (1) false arrest claims related to the June 1, 2017 traffic stop by Mr. Stoltzfus and Mr. Riehl against Parke County Sheriff Deputies Shawn Clover and Geoffrey Canfield; a nd (2) Mr. Stoltzfus' excessive force claim against Deputy Clover. As such, the Court GRANTS the State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 19 and Mr. Lee's Motion to Dismiss, 43 . The Parke County Defendants' Motion to Dismis s, 29 and the Rockville Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 32 , are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: the Parke County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' false arrest claims against Pa rke County Sheriff Deputies Shawn Clover and Geoffrey Canfield and Mr. Stoltzfus' excessive force claim against Deputy Clover, the Parke County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in all other respects, the Rockville Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' false arrest claims against Rockville Police Officers Christopher Fisher and Rodney Smith, the Rockville Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in all other respects. Dismissal of all claims against the State Defendants is WITH PREJUDICE. Dismissal of all other claims set forth herein is WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs have thirty days to move to amend their complaint if they intend to continue to pursue the c laims that have been dismissed without prejudice. Failure to file a motion to file an amended complaint within this time period will result in dismissal WITH PREJUDICE with respect to such claims. Given the potential for an amended complaint, the period of time within which Parke County Sheriff Deputies Shawn Clover and Geoffrey Canfield and Rockville Police Officers Christopher Fisher and Rodney Smith must answer is extended for a period of sixty days following this entry. No final judgment shall issue at this time (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/30/2018. Copy to Plaintiffs via US Mail. (DW)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
