Carter, Tommie v. Cummings, Antonio et al
| Tommie L. Carter |
| Antonio Cummings, Robert Pickle, Jay Vanlanen and Amy Gandy |
| 3:2016cv00055 |
| January 21, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Madison Office |
| Dodge |
| Barbara B. Crabb |
| Stephen L. Crocker |
| 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
150
ORDER denying plaintiff's 149 motion for clarification. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 6/8/2017. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
145
ORDER of Recusal. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb recused. Case reassigned to District Judge William M. Conley for all further proceedings. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/2/2017. (elc),(ps)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER that Defendants Antonio Cummings and Robert Pickle are AWARDED $468 under the court's inherent authority as a sanction for plaintiff Tommie Carter's litigation misconduct. The clerk of court is directed to send a copy of this order to warden of the prison where plaintiff is incarcerated so that the amount can be deducted from plaintiff's account in accordance with prison rules. Plaintiff's motion for assistance in recruiting counsel, dkt. #121, is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/22/2017. (jef/cc: warden),(ps)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER granting 95 Motion to Withdraw; denying as moot 86 Motion for Sanctions; granting in part 92 Motion for Sanctions; granting in part and denying in part 97 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 110 Motion for Summary Judgment. Pl aintiff will be required to reimburse defendants for their reasonable expenses in responding to plaintiff's motion for sanctions. Defendants may have until February 22, 2017, to submit an itemized list of those expenses, along with an explanat ion regarding why they are reasonable. Plaintiff may have until March 8, 2017, to respond. Defendants may have until March 15, 2017, to reply. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 97 , is DENIED as to plaintiff's claim that d efendants Pickle and Cummings failed to protect plaintiff from self harm. Defendants' summary judgment motion is GRANTED as to plaintiff's claim against defendant Van Lanen. That claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to plaintiff's refiling it after the proceedings in this case are completed. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/8/2017. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 77 motion to compel; denying 80 motion for an extension of time. Defendants Antonio Cummings and Robert Pickle may have until October 18, 2016, to file and serve a supplemental discover y response in which they explain the steps they took to determine whether there are any documents responsive to plaintiff's request for emails related to the October 17, 2013 incident. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/3/2016. (jef),(ps)
|
|
Filing
72
ORDER denying plaintiff's 15 Motion for Protective Order; 21 Motion for Sanctions; 22 Motion for Default Judgment; 29 Motion for Assistance in Recruiting Counsel; 34 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 36 Motion for Sanctions; 40 Motion for Sanctions; 44 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; 46 Motion to Take Depositions; 47 Motion for Protective Order; 48 Motion for Competency Determination; 49 Motion for Sanctions; 53 Motion for Sanctions; 56 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 8/16/2016. (elc),(ps)
|
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 Wisconsin 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.
