Hodge v. Burkhart et al
Plaintiff: Douglas M. Hodge
Defendant: B. J. Burkhart, Ken Casteel, Dan Howard and Derek Moore
Case Number: 6:2015cv00105
Filed: June 17, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: London Office
County: Harlan
Presiding Judge: P SO
Presiding Judge: Gregory F. VanTatenhove
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER: 1. The Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Wehrman [R. 34 ] is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint are DISMISSED; 3. Any pending motions are DENIED, AS MOOT; and 4. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 01/05/2017.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer
May 20, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiff Douglas Hodges 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants B.J. Burkhart, Ken Casteel, Dan Howard, and Derek Moore in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 2. Plaintiff Hodges 42 U.S.C . § 1983 claims against Defendants B.J. Burkhart, Dan Howard, and Derek Moore in their individual capacities, as well as his pendant state and/or common law claims, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. Defendants B.J. Burkhart, Dan Howard, and D erek Moore are TERMINATED as Defendants from this proceeding; 4. Plaintiff Hodges Eighth Amendment claims alleging verbal sexual harassment; First Amendment claims alleging denial of access to legal materials; and Fourteenth Amendment claims alleg ing the denial of due process, all brought against Defendant Ken Casteel in his individual capacity, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 5. Plaintiff Hodges Eighth Amendment claims alleging the use of excessive force and the failure to stop the use of f orce by another inmate, as well as Hodges pendant state/common law claims alleging assault, failure to intervene in a crime, and failure to report a crime, against Defendant Ken Casteel in his individual capacity SHALL PROCEED, and Defendant Caste el must respond to those claims; 6. Hodges claims alleging violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq., are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 7. Hodges request for various forms of injunctive relief are DENIED AS MOOT d ue to Hodges current confinement at the Kentucky State Reformatory; 8. The London Clerks Office is DIRECTED to prepare a Service Packet for Defendant Ken Casteel, Deputy Jailer of the Harlan County Detention Center; 9. The London Clerks Office is DIRECTED to send the Service Packet to the United States Marshals Service in Lexington, Kentucky; 10. The United States Marshals Services shall be responsible for ensuring that Defendant Ken Casteel is successfully served with process; 11. Within forty (40) days of the date of entry of this Order, the United States Marshals Service Office shall send a Service Report to the London Clerks Office stating whether service was accomplished, which the Clerk shall FILE in the record. 12. Plaintiff Hodge must keep the Clerk of the Court informed of his current mailing address. Failure to notify the Clerk of any change of address may result in dismissal of his case; and 13. With every notice or motion filed with the Court, Hodge must (a) mail a copy to Defendant Casteel or his attorney; and (b) at the end of the notice or motion, certify that he has mailed a copy to Defendant Casteel or his attorney and the date on which this was done. The Court will disregard any notice or motion which does not include this certification. Derek Moore (Chief Deputy, Harlan County Detention Center), B. J. Burkhart (Jailer, Harlan County Detention Center) and Dan Howard (Captain, Harlan County Detention Center) terminated.. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 5/20/2016.(JMB)cc: COR, Douglas Hodge via US Mail
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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hodge v. Burkhart et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Douglas M. Hodge
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: B. J. Burkhart
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ken Casteel
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dan Howard
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Derek Moore
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?