DOUGHERTY v. COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA et al
| DERRICK MATTHEW DOUGHERTY |
| COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA, TIM YOCUM and MIKE PHELPS |
| 2:2022cv00579 |
| December 15, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| James Patrick Hanlon |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah Gahimer on behalf of Defendants COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA, MIKE PHELPS, TIM YOCUM. (Gahimer, Hannah) |
| Filing 12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed, filed by MIKE PHELPS, TIM YOCUM, COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA. All Defendants. (Roberts, Liberty) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Liberty L. Roberts on behalf of Defendants COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA, MIKE PHELPS, TIM YOCUM. (Roberts, Liberty) |
Filing 10
ORDER denying #4 Plaintiff's Motion for Previously Requested Documents. Plaintiff does not provide any information about what the "previously requested documents" are or how they are relevant to this case. Any request that the Court take action must provide all of the relevant details so that the Court can determine whether the requested action is appropriate. The Court further notes that discovery in this matter has not commenced by rule. Copies mailed per distribution. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 1/10/2023. (KAA)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Lawsuit & Waiver Issued by Clerk upon: (1) County of Vermillion, Indiana; (2) Tim Yocum; and (3) Mike Phelps. (AKH) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING #2 IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS - Mr. Dougherty's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #2 , is GRANTED. While in forma pauperis status allows Mr. Dougherty to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, he remains liable for the full fees. In this case, the filing fee is Three Hundred and Fifty Dollars. No payment is due at this time. Mr. Dougherty has asked the Court to order that he "and any other person blocked by Commissioner Yocum be unblocked immediately." Dkt. #3 . Mr. Dougherty's motion is DENIED without prejudice. Dkt. #3 . If he believes that a preliminary injunction is appropriate, he may renew this motion with more detail and evidentiary support. The clerk is DIRECTED to issue process to Defendants. Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. #1 , applicable forms (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of Service of Summons), and this Order. Copies sent pursuant to distribution list. (See Order). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/6/2023. (AKH)
|
| Filing 7 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by DERRICK MATTHEW DOUGHERTY. (JRB) |
| Filing 6 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (KAA) |
| Filing 5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (KAA) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Previously Requested Documents, filed by Plaintiff DERRICK MATTHEW DOUGHERTY. (KAA) |
| Filing 3 MOTION fpr Facebook Block List Removal, filed by Plaintiff DERRICK MATTHEW DOUGHERTY. (KAA) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff DERRICK MATTHEW DOUGHERTY. (KAA) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against COUNTY OF VERMILLION, INDIANA, MIKE PHELPS, TIM YOCUM, filed by DERRICK MATTHEW DOUGHERTY. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(KAA) |
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.
