Jackson v. Aramark et al
Plaintiff: Marvin Jackson
Defendant: Aramark, Jerge, Kentucky Department of Correction and James L. Erwin
Case Number: 3:2017cv00322
Filed: May 25, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Office: Louisville Office
County: Oldham
Presiding Judge: David J. Hale
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge David J. Hale on 4/23/2018 re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (DN 17 ) is GRANTED. The Court will enter a separate Judgment dismissing the action. cc: Counsel, Pro Se Plaintiff (MEJ)
September 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION & ORDER by Judge David J. Hale on 9/27/2017; for the reasons stated forth in this opinion, motion to dismiss DN 11 is DENIED.cc:counsel, Pro-Se Pla. (ARM)
July 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge David J. Hale on 7/25/2017: Plaintiff's claims against KDOC and his official-capacity claims against Defendant Erwin are DISMISSED; Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Aramark and his official-capa city claims against Defendant Jerge based upon the serving of a nutritionally inadequate diet, expired food, and unsanitary food service conditions are DISMISSED; Plaintiff's individual-capacity claims against Defendants Erwin and Jerge are D ISMISSED; Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Aramark and Defendant Jerge in his official-capacity for refusing to provide diabetic inmates with a diabetic diet shall be allowed to proceed; The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate KDOC and Defendant Erwin as parties to this action. The Court will enter a separate Scheduling Order and Order Regarding Service to govern the continuing claim. cc: Plaintiff (Pro se), Defendants (JBM)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jackson v. Aramark 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: Marvin Jackson
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: Aramark
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: Jerge
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: Kentucky Department of Correction
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: James L. Erwin
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?