Jones v. Lape
| James A.R. Jones |
| Alex Lape, John Does, John Doe Deputies, Shawn Meloy, Chris Andrews, John McElhaney and Jeffrey DeMint |
| 2:2025cv01502 |
| December 17, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Stephanie K Bowman |
| Edmund A Sargus |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 30, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Summons Issued as to Chris Andrews, Alex Lape, John McElhaney and Shawn Meloy. (sem) |
Filing 12
ORDER denying without prejudice #8 Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the Pro Se Handbook for his use during these proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 5/27/2026. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against all Defendants, filed by James A.R. Jones. (km) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (doc. #9 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint and attached exhibits (See Doc. 9, PageID 101-41) on the docket as Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Plaintiff MAY PROCEED at this juncture to further develop his Fourth Amendment claims and his Ohio state-law IIED claims against Defendants Lape, Meloy, Andrews, McElhaney, John Doe Fairfield County Jail booking staff, and John Doe Fairfield County Deputy Sheriff(s) (arresting officers); (2) The Court notes that Plaintiff has provided the appropriate service documents for the following Defendants identified by name: Lape, Meloy, Andrews, and McElhaney. (See Doc. 7-1, PageID 78-85). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward copies of the Second Amended Complaint and the appropriate service documents to the United States Marshal Service; (3) Thereafter, the United States Marshal Service is DIRECTED to serve copies of the Summons, the Second Amended Complaint, and this Order and Report and Recommendations on Defendants Lape, Meloy, Andrews, and McElhaney. The costs of service shall be advanced by the United States; (4) However, two or more Defendants against whom Plaintiff has been permitted to proceed at this juncture, John Doe Defendants with the Fairfield County Sheriffs Office (Deputy Sheriff arresting officer(s)) and the Fairfield County Jail (booking/intake staff), are identified only by their place of employment and position, rather than by their names. (See Doc. 9, PageID 101-03, 105, 108). Because Plaintiff has provided insufficient identifying information for these Defendants, the Court will treat these individuals as unidentified defendants. Plaintiff is ADVISED that, before service may be issued upon the unnamed Doe Defendants, he must file a motion to issue service setting forth the identity of these defendants. Plaintiff must also provide updated United States Marshal (USM-285) and summons forms for service on each Doe Defendant once the individuals' identities are discovered. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to file a motion to issue service, including updated United States Marshal and summons forms for each Defendant, if and when Plaintiff discovers the identity of these Defendants through discovery. No service will be issued on these Defendants unless Plaintiff complies with this Order; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) The Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against all Defendants for the failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) The Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's failure to investigate claims against Defendant Lape, in his role as Fairfield County Sheriff, for the failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted; (3) The Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against Defendant DeMint for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court should also DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's state-law IIED claim against DeMint since no federal claims against him remain. Because Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim against DeMint, he should be DISMISSED as a defendant in this action. (Objections to R&R due by 6/10/2026). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 5/27/2026. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Service documents provided to the U.S. Marshals this date. (sem) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Amend #7 Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(A)(1) by Plaintiff James A.R. Jones. (kh) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff James A.R. Jones. (pb) |
| Filing 7 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Alex Lape, filed by James A.R. Jones. (Attachments: #1 Summons Form) (pb) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER - Because the Lape complaint contains more factual allegations and provides information about a potential timeliness issue, Jones v. Meloy, Case No. 2:25-cv-727 (June 30, 2025), is DISMISSED and TERMINATED on the docket. The Court dismisses the Meloy Case rather than consolidating the two cases so that Plaintiff does not have to pay two filing fees to bring one dispute to the Court. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED within 30 DAYS to file an Amended Complaint in Case No. 2:25-cv-1502, combining Defendants and allegations from both cases to proceed in one combined action. All documents should be captioned and filed on the docket in Jones v. Lape, Case No. 2:25-cv-1502. The Undersigned will then conduct an initial screen to determine which, if any, of Plaintiff's claims should proceed for further development. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a); 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a blank pro se prisoner complaint form to assist Plaintiff in filing the combined amended complaint. Plaintiff will also need to submit a proper summons form for each defendant listed in the new Amended Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 2/5/2026. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 5 COMPLAINT against Alex Lape, filed by James A.R. Jones. (km) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and ordering the collection of the full filing fee in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the terms set forth in this Order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the institutional cashier at Belmont Correctional Institution and to plaintiffs address listed on the docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 2/5/2026. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing 3
RELATED CASE MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Judges agree that this case and case number 2:25-cv-727 ARE related. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 1/5/2026. (kaw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff James A.R. Jones. (Attachments: #1 Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Summons and Marshal Form) (er) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 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.
