Kendrick v. Erdos et al
Case Number: 1:2021cv00266
Filed: September 7, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 15, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Consistent with the 69 R&R, it is ORDERED that, Plaintiff's request for an order to protect privileged mail, as set forth in his 63 "Brief and motion request", is DENIED, and the Court CE RTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 5/15/2023. (kkz)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
April 18, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Plaintiff's Doc. 60 Motion Brief and Request to Amend Complaint is DENIED; Plaintiff's Doc. 63 Brief and Motion Request is DENIED, in part, as set forth above; Plainti ff's Doc. [66}Motion to reinstate dismissed defendants under O.R.C[.] 2921.45 (B) for conspiring to deprive Plaintiff of civil rights by fraudulent use of the Exhaustion Requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Motion Request to Suppl ement complaint to add O.R.C. 2921.45 (B) allegations against dismissed Defendants and Defendants. Motion Request to present all evidence pertaining to Exhaustion and obstruction of it by dismissed defendant and evidence of retaliation by Unit Manage r Oppy for consideration to add as defendant is DENIED. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's request for an order to protect privileged mail, as set forth in his Brief and Motion Request (Doc. # 63 ) be DENIED; and The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pa uperis. ( Objections to R&R due by 5/2/2023). Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. on 4/18/2023. (bjr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) Modified on 4/18/2023 (bjr).
March 9, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and denying 54 Plaintiff's "Motion to Enforce court decree for Law Library Access". Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/9/2023. (kkz)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
September 27, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 59 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: the Court OVERRULES 30 33 Plaintiff's Objections and ADOPTS IN FULL both the 15 September 7, 2021 R&R and 42 June 14, 2022 R&R. Consistent with the recommendations in each R&R, it is further ORD ERED that: the 13 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), with the exception of Plaintiff's Count Two against Defendants Chambers-Smith, in her official capacity, Erdos, in his official capac ity, and Goodwin, in her individual capacity, and Plaintiff's Count Three against Defendants Conley and Ross, in their individual capacities; the Clerk of Court SHALL update this matter's docket sheet to reflect that Defendant Erdos is sue d in his official capacity only; Defendants Erdos, Chambers-Smith, Goodwin, Conley, and Ross SHALL file their Answers within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the issuance of this Order; Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Default Judgment, 34 Bri ef and Requests Due to Retaliation and Interference and Invasion of Privacy of Privileged Legal Mail, 35 Motion Inquiry to Judge Barrett, and 35 Brief and Requests, and 37 Motion Inquiry and Request for Court Documents are each DENIED; and t he Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and thus DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 9/27/2022. (kkz)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 28 ) ; Brief and Requests Due to Retaliation and Interference and Invasion of Privacy of Privileged Legal Mail (Doc. 34 ); Mo tion Inquiry to Judge Barrett, an[d] Brief and Requests (Doc. 35 ) {As noted above, this motion (Doc. 35 ) remains pending before the Court to the extent it references Plaintiff's objections to the pending Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15 )}; and Motion Inquir[y] and Request for Court Documents (Doc. 37 ) be DENIED. 2. The DENIAL of Plaintiff's request for documents filed in this case be WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal as appropriate wit h specific requests of the documents he seeks to be copied and that the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to send plaintiff a copy of the Docket Sheet for this purpose. 3. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the for egoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). Objections to R&R due by 6/28/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr on 6/14/2022. (bjr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations; Plaintiff's 14 20 objections are overruled; and 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order is denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/31/2022. (kkz)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
September 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) The amended complaint (Doc. 13) be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); (2) The Court should ORDER that the docket sheet be updated toreflect t hat Defendant Erdos is sued in his official capacity only; and (3) The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: (1) The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the amended complaint (Doc. 13 ), summons, and this Order and Report and Recommendation upon defendants Conley, Ross, Chambers-Smith, Erdos, and Goodwin; (2) Plaintiff shall serve upon defen dants or, if an appearance has been entered by counsel, upon defendants attorney(s), a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by the Court; and (3) Plaintiff shall inform the Court promptly of any changes in his address which may occur during the pendency of this lawsuit. (Objections to R&R due by 9/21/2021.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 9/07/2021. (kh) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Kendrick v. Erdos et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?