KROLIK v. PEREZ
| CHARLES KROLIK |
| JOHN BYRD and JESSICA PEREZ |
| 2:2019cv00391 |
| August 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglass R. Bitner on behalf of Defendant JESSICA PEREZ. (Bitner, Douglass) |
Filing 12
ORDER - #11 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint is GRANTED. No later than 10/4/2019, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that contains all claims against all defendants. It will replace the original complaint.The amended complaint will be screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/13/2019 (copy mailed per distribution list). (TMC)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff CHARLES KROLIK. (LBT) |
|
Filing 10
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Correct Clerical Error - Plaintiff Charles Krolik's August 20, 2019, motion to correct clerical error, dkt. #6 , is granted to the extent that the documents attached to the motion may be considered as exhibits to the original petition. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/4/2019. (DMW)
|
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed - JESSICA PEREZ waiver sent on 8/20/2019. (DMW) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE to Pro se Litigant - The following information is provided to pro se litigants to inform them about rules and procedures governing how they communicate with the Court. (Copy sent to plaintiff via US Mail) (JRT) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Correct Error re #1 Complaint, filed by Plaintiff CHARLES KROLIK. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(DMW) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Lawsuit & Waiver Issued by Clerk to: Jessica Perez (DMW) |
|
Filing 4
Order Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Screening Complaint, Dismissing Deficient Claims, and Directing Issuance and Service of Process - Mr. Krolik's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, dkt. #2 , is granted because the Court finds that he does not have the assets or means to pay even an initial partial filing fee. The Court has (1) screened the complaint and directed that a constitutional claim for violation of medical privacy shall proceed against defendant Nurse Jessica Perez; (2) dismissed Dr. John Byrd as a defendant and directed the clerk to terminate him from the docket; (3) allowed Mr. Krolik through September 20, 2019, in which to file a motion to reconsider or amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in this Order; and (4) directed the issuance and service of process. The clerk is also directed to send a courtesy copy of this Order to attorney Douglass R. Bitner at the address in the distribution list below. (See Order.) Copy via US Mail pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/20/2019. (DMW)
|
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff CHARLES KROLIK. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - Certified Statement of Inmate Trust Fund Account)(REO) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against JOHN BYRD, JESSICA PEREZ, filed by CHARLES KROLIK. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 proposed Waiver of Service of Summons)(REO) Modified on 8/16/2019 (REO). |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
