Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-786 - BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-786 - BROOKS-ALBRECHTSEN v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS
November 19, 2015
PDF | More
ENTRY Severing Claims and Directing Further Proceedings - All claims against Officer Mitchell are dismissed without prejudice. Officer Mitchell is terminated as a defendant in this action. The defendants proceeding in this action have appeared by counsel and shall have through December 22, 2015, in which to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint filed November 10, 2015. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/19/2015. (JLS)
March 30, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR HEARING - Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is thus premature. This procedural defect additionally prevents the court from issuing a default judgment. For these reasons, Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment and his Motion and Request for Hearing (Docket 63) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/30/2016. (JLS)
June 9, 2016
PDF | More
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 52). Brooks' Motion to Strike and Motion for Leave to File Amended Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED (Filing No. 55). All of Brooks' federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for violation of Ind. Code ยง 35-38-9-10, which provides injunctive relief for employment decisions that are impermissibly made based on sealed criminal convictions. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed without prejudice. Because the Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over Brooks' sole-remaining state law claim, the Court also DENIES as moot Brooks' Rule 72 Objection (Filing No. 87), Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 78.), Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Filing No. 91), and his Motion to Extend the Parties' CMP Deadline (Filing No. 95). The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/09/2016. (JLS) Modified on 6/10/2016 (JLS).