Hanna v. East Carroll Parish et al
Mark Hanna |
Sheriffs Dept East Carroll Parish, Alvin Jones, Ronnie Harris, East Carroll Detention Center, Riverbend Detention Center, DeShawn Lee, Greg Williams, Jane Loe, James Shaw, Andre Brooks, June Thompson, John Roe, Henry Turner, Jane Soe and Mark Shumate |
3:2010cv01059 |
June 14, 2010 |
US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana |
Monroe Office |
Claiborne |
Karen L Hayes |
Robert G James |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 52 MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 34 MOTION to Amend and Supplement filed by Mark Hanna. Paragraph 111 of plaintiff's 32 page attachment to his original complaint is AMENDED as stated in paragraph A of this order. Paragraph 155 of plaintiff's 32 page attachment to his original complaint is AMENDED as stated in paragraph B of this order. Henry Reed is substituted as a defendant in place of John Roe. Plaintiff's requests to add Paragraphs 1 56, 157, 158 and to amend Paragraph 59 are DENIED. Plaintiff's request to correct typographical and citation errors is DENIED as moot. ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 46 Motion to Correct Record. ORDER GRANTING 49 MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve plaintiff with two summons forms and one USM 285 form for Henry Reed, defendant to be completed by plaintiff and returned to clerk for service by U S Marshal. Clerk manually noticed order with forms.( Pro Se Response due by 3/14/2011.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 2/9/11. (crt,Crawford, A) |
Filing 51 RULING re 47 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re 39 Order on Motion to Compel filed by Mark Hanna. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 2/2/11. (crt,DickersonSld, D) |
Filing 37 RULING having fully considered the record in this matter, including plaintiff's objections, the court agrees with and ADOPTS the 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; the court issues this ruling to address plaintiff's objections; Plaintiff conte nds that he properly asserted claims against East Carroll Detention Center and River Bend Detention Center and that the Magistrate Judge has improperly recommended dismissal of these Defendants as non-juridical entities. First, even if East Carroll D etention Center were a proper Defendant in this matter, Plaintiffs remaining excessive force claim occurred at River Bend Detention Center, and, thus, Plaintiff has no claim against East Carroll Detention Center. Second,Plaintiff relies on inapplicab le authority to assert that he can bring suit against these two detention centers. Neither East Carroll Detention Center nor River Bend Detention Center is a juridical entity.These are merely the names of correctional institutions where Plaintiff was incarcerated. Finally, the Court notes that the Magistrate Judge did not recommend dismissal of the claims against East Carroll Detention Center on this basis, but the Court finds that this detention center is also subject to dismissal as a non-juridical entity. Signed by Chief Judge Robert G James on 12/14/10. (crt,Davis, C) |
Filing 35 ORDER granting 31 Motion for Leave to Verify the Complaint; denying as superfluous 32 Motion to Amend and Supplement the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER Ordered that 34 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint is set for contradictory hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 12/2/10. (crt,Crawford, A) |
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 Louisiana 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.