Brock v. Wright et al
| Dominique J. Brock |
| Stephen Wright, Karren L. Stammers, Sammuel Wright, Embry and David Hicks |
| 4:2015cv00065 |
| May 11, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Owensboro Office |
| Muhlenberg |
| Joseph H. McKinley |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
67
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 3/6/2018: The motion for summary judgment by defendant Samuel Wright 62 is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Dominique Brock must submit evidence of his damages on his claims against defendant David Hicks by 5/31/2018. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant David Anthony Hicks (JM)
|
|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 10/6/2017: Plaintiff Dominique J. Brock's motion to seal the case 54 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Brocks motion for a preliminary injunction 55 is DENIED. Plaintiff Brock is INSTRUCTED that he is to file no more letters in the record. Any letters to the Court will be disregarded. If Brock wishes to make a motion, he must file a motion with the Court and direct service of the motion upon the defendants in this case. cc: counsel, Plaintiff (pro se) (JBM)
|
|
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 3/1/2017 granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion for Summary Judgment: Defendants motion for summary judgment 30 is GRANTED as to Defendants Steven Wright , Karen Stammers, and Jeff Embry; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 30 is GRANTED as to the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Defendant Samuel Wright; Defendants' motion for summary judgment 30 is GRANTED as to the proceeding state-law claims of assault and battery, negligent hiring/retention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, first-degree assault, criminal abuse, and second-degree assault. The state-law claims are DISMISSED from this actio n. As to the failure-to- protect and deliberate indifference claims against Defendant Samuel Wright based on placing Plaintiff in the recreation cage, Defendants motion for summary judgment 30 is DENIED; There being no remaining claims against them, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendants Steven Wright, Karen Stammers, and Jeff Embry from the docket of this case. cc: Counsel, Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant Hicks (JBM)
|
|
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying Defendants motion for summary judgment 19 without prejudice to filing a properly supported motion for summary judgment. It is ordered that within 30 days of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, Defendan ts may file a properly supported motion for summary judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiff must file a response within 21 days from service of Defendants motion. Defendants may file a reply within 14 days of service of Plaintiffs response. See document for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Counsel for Defendants (EM)
|
|
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr on 9/11/2015: The official-capacity claims against Defendants seeking monetary damages are DISMISSED; the injunctive relief claims requesting that criminal charges be brought against Defendant Hicks and that the State Defendants be fired are DISMISSED; the claims seeking revision of the KDOC policy prohibiting guards from intervening in fights between inmates and the KDOC policy prohibiting inmates from using self-defense in adm inistrative proceedings are DISMISSED; the Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims are DISMISSED; the claim which Plaintiff describes as a claim for False Arrest, Imprisonment, Apprehencion is barred by the Heck doctrine and is DISMISSED; the cla im for malicious prosecution which the Court construed as a claim for retaliation and conspiracy to retaliate, is DISMISSED; The claim for malice within the institution is DISMISSED; the malpractice claims are DISMISSED. The following claims shall pr oceed: (1) the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims against Defendants Stammers, Sammuel Wright, Embry, and Hicks in their individual capacities; (2) the failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Stammers, Sammuel Wright, and Embry in their indi vidual capacities; (3) the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference in placing Plaintiff in the recreation cage with Defendant Hicks against Defendants Stammers, Sammuel Wright, and Embry in their individual capacities; (4) the state-law cl aim for assault and battery; (5) the state-law claim for negligent hiring/retention; (6) the state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) the state-law claim for first-degree assault, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann § 508.010; (8) th e state-law claim for criminal abuse, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508.100; and (9) the state-law claim for second-degree assault, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508.020. The Court will enter a separate Scheduling Order directing service and governing the development of the continuing claims. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendant Hicks, JPSC. (JBM)
|
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 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.
