TALBOTT v. ORTH et al
| RICHARD DALE TALBOTT |
| SUSAN ORTH, KEITH HENDERSON, REXANNE FARRIS, ANNE CONATSER, KARA BARKER, MARY ANDERSON and S. PATTON |
| 4:2014cv00014 |
| February 28, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| New Albany Office |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| William G. Hussmann |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
11
ENTRY Concerning Selected Matters - 10 Motion to Expedite is GRANTED consistent with the rulings and directions in this Entry. 9 Sealed Motion to Seal 1 Complaint is GRANTED. The clerk shall place the complaint (Dkt. 1 ) under seal. The Cl erk shall file and docket the proposed redacted complaint (Dkt. [9-1]). A copy of the filed redacted complaint shall be included with the plaintiff's copy of this Entry. The redacted complaint shall be used for all purposes hereafter as the c omplaint unless specific arguments are presented concerning the allegations in paragraphs 22, 23, 29, 36, 38, and 40 of the original complaint. The original complaint will also be used as the basis for the screening which is required by 28 U.S.C. 67; 1915A(b). The ruling in paragraph 2 of this Entry is provisional only, although no expirationdate is established for keeping the original complaint under seal. It may be disputed whether the moving defendant has met the "rigorous justificati on" required to justify withdrawing the original complaint from public view. In re Krynicki, 983 F.2d 74, 75 (7th Cir. 1992). Two possible alternatives to the sealing of the original complaint suggest themselves at the outset. The first is that the plaintiff may be prepared to withdraw or amend the language in the specified paragraphs--amend the language in such a way as to remove the allegations which the moving defendant has found objectionable. The plaintiff shall have through 4/18/2014, in which to address that possibility in a report to the court. The second is that a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may entirely suffice. That possibility may be taken by the moving defendant if warran ted by future circumstances in this case. The plaintiff, as well as any member of the public, shall have through the close of business on 4/18/2014, in which to object to the sealing of the complaint as specified in paragraph 1 of this Entry. If an objection is filed, the court will direct further proceedings. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/20/2014 (copy mailed to plaintiff). (LBT)
|
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.
