Browning v. Staff at USP Big Sandy et al
| James Holman Browning, Jr. |
| Mr. Edwards, L. T. Pennerton, Tim Fazenbaker, Myron L. Batts, Suzanne R. Hastings and B. Gourdouze |
| 7:2008cv00088 |
| May 2, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Pikeville Office |
| Martin |
| Karen K. Caldwell |
| Pro Se |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
| None |
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
195
OPINION & ORDER: 1) Motion to Dismiss 140 filed by dfts is GRANTED in part & DENIED in part. Motion is GRANTED as to dfts L. Turner, James Link, James Meade, Benjamin Pennington & Lt. J. Konkle and motion is otherwise DENIED.; 2) Motion for Summar y Judgment 140 on issue of qualified immunity is GRANTED as to all seven remaining dfts: dfts Tim Fazenbaker, Myron Batts, L. Turner, James Link, James Meade, Benjamin Pennington & Lt. J. Konkle. 3) Pla's Motion to Amend its Complaint 173 i s DENIED. 4) All other pending motions 185 186 190 193 194 are DENIED as moot. 5) Pla's claims against dfts Tim Fazenbaker, Myron Batts, L. Turner, James Link, James Meade, Benjamin Pennington & Lt. J. Konkle are hereby DISMISSED and 6) This action is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/12/2012.(RKT) cc: James Browning, Jr. via US mail w/NOE; COR
|
|
Filing
123
OPINION & ORDER: 1) Brownings Motion to Reopen Judgment Based on Newly Discovered Evidence FRCP 60(b) and 59(e) Reopen Judgment Based on Motion to Extend Scheduling Order by Both Parties DE 114 is GRANTED in part and denied in part. The motion is G RANTED to the extent that the no claims or allegations are stricken from the Amended Complaint. The motion is otherwise DENIED;2) However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, Brownings civil conspiracy claim against all of the Dfts is DISMISSED 3) As to Bro wnings Memorandum of Objections under FRCP-72(b), Amended motion Based on Preliminary Injunction 65(a)(2) DE 117 , any objections contained in the document are OVERRULED. To the extent that this document moves for Preliminary Injunction, that motion is DENIED. 4) A Deputy Clerk in the Pikeville Clerks Office shall prepare the documents necessary for service of process upon the following Dft in this action: (1) L. Turner, (2) James Meade, (3) L.T. Konkle, and (4) James Link. 5) To facilitate s ervice of process on these identified Dfts, the Deputy Clerk shall prepare a "Service Packet" consisting of the following documents: a. a completed summons form; b. the Amended Complaint DE 102 ; c. the Order granting Pla in forma pauperis status DE 9 ; d. this Opinion and Order; and e. a completed USM Form 285. If the Clerk is unable to fully and accurately complete any of the documents described above, the Clerk shall set forth the reason in a docket entry. (6) For each of these identified Dfts, the Deputy Clerk shall prepare four (4) Service Packets to be provided to the USM Office in Lexington, Kentucky, addressed as follows: a. to the Civil Process Clerk at the Office of the US Attorney for the EDKY; b. to the Office of t he Attorney General of the US in Washington, D.C.; c. to the Central Office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in Washington, D.C.; and d. for personal service at the US Penitentiary-Big Sandy, in Inez, Kentucky. 7) The Deputy Clerk shall send the req uired Service Packet for each of these identified Dfts by certified mail to the USM Office in Lexington Kentucky and shall enter the certified mail receipt into the record. (8) The USM Office shall serve these identified Dfts as follows: a. Sending a Service Packet for each of the identified Dfts by certified or registered mail to the Civil Process Clerk at the Office of the US Attorney for the Eastern EDKY; Sending a Service Packet for each of the identified Dfts by certified or registered mai l to the Office of the Attorney General of the US in Washington, D.C.; c. Sending a Service Packet for each of the identified Dfts by certified or registered mail to the Central Office of the Federal BOP in Washington, D.C.; and d. Personally serving a Service Packet on each of the identified Dfts in his individual capacity, at the US Penitentiary-Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky, through arrangement with the Federal BOP or by personal service wherever else he or she may be found. 9) The USM Office is responsible for ensuring that each of the identified Dfts is successfully served with process. In the event that an attempt at service upon the Dft is unsuccessful, the USM Office shall make further attempts and shall ascertain such information as is necessary to ensure successful service. 10) Within 40 days of the date of entry of this Order, the USM Office shall send a Service Report to the Pikeville Clerks Office, which the Deputy Clerk shall file in the record, which states whether servi ce has been accomplished with respect to the identified Dfts. a. For each Dft to be served by certified mail, the Service Report shall include: i. the green card showing proof of service; or ii. a statement that the green card was not returned from the U.S. Postmaster, along with a Track-and-Confirm report from the U.S. Postal Service showing that a proof of delivery does not exist. b. For each Dft to be personally served, the Service Report shall indicate: i. that the dft was successfully served personally, or ii. a statement explaining what efforts are being taken to locate the Dft and accomplish personal service. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/17/11.(MJY)cc: COR, James H. Browning, USM as noted
|
|
Filing
122
OPINION & ORDER: 1) the Magistrate Judges Recommended Disposition DE 111 is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; and 2) for the reasons stated in the Recommended Disposition, the Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Permitting the BOP Medical Services and Hospital to Grant and to Order MRI Test for Major Spine Surgery and to Show Liability Damages DE 80 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 3/8/11.(MJY)cc: COR, James H. Browning
|
|
Filing
108
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Browning's Application to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (DE 95 ) is DENIED as moot. 2) Browning's Motion to Extend Notice of Appeal (DE 106 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that Browning asks the Court to rule that he is not required to pay an appellate filing fee at this time and the motion is otherwise DENIED; and 3) Plas Rule 59(e)/60(b) Motion (DE 104 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 1/20/2011. (TDA)cc: COR & James Browning, Jr.
|
|
Filing
92
OPINION & ORDER: 1) Brownings Motion to Amend his Complaint (DE 71 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a) the Motion is GRANTED as to Brownings request to assert charges that L. Turner, James Meade, and L.T. John Konkle failed to pr otect him from a serious risk of substantial harm; andb) the Motion is DENIED as to Brownings request to add James Link as a Defendant in this matter; and 2) Browning SHALL FILE within 20 days of the entry date of this order an Amended Complaint that conforms with this opinion. Specifically, the Amended Complaint should delete the names James Link and Mr. Edwards and the allegations against those individuals contained in the Amended Complaint tendered with this motion. Further, the Amended Complaint should substitute the name Benjamin Pennington for the name L.T. Pennerton. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 9/16/10`.(MJY)cc: COR, James H. Browning, Jr.
|
|
Filing
76
OPINION & ORDER: 1) Dfts Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (DE 49 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2) motion is GRANTED as to Dft named "Mr. Edwards;" the claim against Mr. Edwards is DISMISSED; and motion is otherwise DENIED; and 3) Clerk is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE "Benjamin Pennington" for "L.T. Pennerton" as a Dft in this matter. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/3/2010. (TDA)cc: COR & James Browning, Jr.
|
|
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for S/J 34 is GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART as follows: (A) Motion to Dismiss GRANTED as to Eighth Amendment "failure to protect" claims & Eighth Amendment medical claims which plaintiff asserted against dfts Hastings & Gourdoze; (B) plaintiff's claims against dfts Hastings & Gourdoze are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Clerk is directed to note in the CM/ECF docket sheet that the claims against these defendant s are "Terminated."; (C) Motion to Dismiss 34 is DENIED as to Eighth Amendment "failure to protect" claims which Browning asserted against dfts Myron Batts, Timothy Fazenbaker, Benjamin Pennington & Officer Edwards; (D) Motion t o Dismiss 34 is GRANTED as to Eighth Amendment medical claims which Browning asserted against dfts Batts, Fazenbaker, Pennington & Officer Edwards; 2) pla's Motion for Appeal of Magistrate Judge decision 3/6/09 41 construed as collective Rule 59 Motion to Alter or Amend Orders entered on (a) 10/8/08; (b) 10/24/08 & (c) 3/6/09 is DENIED; 3) plas Motion to Add US as Dft 42 is DENIED; 4) pla's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (James Meade) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Browning re-filing the motion & attaching an amended complaint; 5) this proceeding 7:08-cv-88-KKC is referred to Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier pursuant to 28 USC 636(b)(1)(A) for all further proceedings; 6) this proceeding is no longer referred to the Pro Se Office. The Clerk of Court is directed to make the proper administrative referral notations in the CM/ECF docket sheet. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/22/2009.(RKT)cc: James Hollman Browning via US mail, COR
|
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 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.
