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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-826 - PARKER v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-826 - PARKER v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE et al
December 3, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. Capital One and Onyx's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, [Filing No. 25], and Count IV (FDCPA claim) and Count V (FCRA claim) of Ms. Parker's Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. Count VII of Ms. Parker's Amended Complaint is not at issue in the pending motion and will proceed at this time. [Filing No. 21 at 7 (Court's screening order allowing Ms. Parker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claim to proceed).] No final judgment shall issue at this time. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/3/2015. Copy sent to Ms. Parker via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
January 7, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER. For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Set Aside is DENIED, [Filing No. 52], and her Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Scheduling Order is OVERRULED, [Filing No. 55]. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on January 19, 2016, in Room 234, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN, will proceed as scheduled, absent good cause shown by motion to continue it, as would be determined by the assigned Magistrate Judge. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/7/2016. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
April 28, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. 95 Ms. Parker's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Order of Dismissal and Add Capital One and Onyx Back Into Action is also DENIED. 115. Capital One and Onyx's request for the Court to enter partial final judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is GRANTED. 106 The Court will enter partial final judgment in favor of Capital One and Onyx by separate entry, and the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE those parties on the docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to UPDATE the docket to reflect Defendant Dalias' actual name--Mark Senesac. The Court GRANTS Ms. Parker's extension request given the various rulings the Court has issued today, and ORDERS Ms. Parker to file a response to the City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by June 12, 2017. Ms. Parker should not anticipate further extensions of that deadline. She should also be sure to thoroughly review the Notice Regarding Right to Respond to and Submit Evidence in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. 112. SEE ORDER. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/28/2017. (JRB)
June 12, 2017
PDF | More
t;) and Defendant Mark Senesac did not respond to the Motions. Accordingly, Ms. Parker's Motions are now ripe for review. Ms. Parker also filed a Motion to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis, [Filing No. 131], which the Court will address in a separate order. For the reasons stated in this Order, Ms. Parker's Motion to Grant Relief from the Order, entered on April 28, 2017 and Partial Final Judgement is DENIED. [Filing No. 128.] Ms. Parker's Motion for the Court to Grant Relief from its Order on Objections to Two Magistrate Judge Orders is also DENIED. [Filing No. 129.] (See Order). Copies pursuant to Distribution List. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/12/2017. (APD) **Emailed to USCA re #17-2123** Modified on 6/13/2017 (LBT).ORDER - Presently pending before the Court are two Motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Brenda Parker to set aside final orders entered by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 60(b). [Filing No. 128 (requesting to set aside Filing No. 120 and Filing No. 123); Filing No. 129 (requesting to set aside Filing No. 119).] Defendants City of Indianapolis, Officer Loyal, Officer Pilkington, and Officer Rolinson (collectively, the "City Defendants&quo
June 12, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY DISCUSSING REQUEST TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - Ms. Parker seeks leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the appellate fees of $505.00. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). "Good faith" within the meaning of § 1915 must be judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard. See id. There is no objectively reasonable argument Ms. Parker could present to argue that the disposition of this action was erroneous. In pursuing an appeal, therefore, Ms. Parker "is acting in bad faith... [because] to sue in bad faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit." Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, her appeal is not taken in good faith, and for this reason her request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, [Filing No. 131], is DENIED. Copies mailed pursuant to Distribution List. (USCA #17-02123). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/12/2017. (APD)
September 12, 2017
PDF | More
gned by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/12/2017. (MAC) **Emailed to USCA re #17-2123** Modified on 9/14/2017 (LBT).ORDER granting City Defendants' 109 Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, summary judgment in favor of Mark Senesac is also Granted. Final Judgment shall issue accordingly. (See Order). Copy to Plaintiff and Mark Senesac via U.S. Mail. Si
February 15, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal filed by pro se Plaintiff Brenda Parker. [Filing No. 165.] Ms. Parker seeks to supplement the record of her case on appeal with a receipt from Federal Express ("Fed Ex") that she claims shows the date on which her Second Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was mailed. [Filing No. 165 at 1.] For the reasons stated herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal is not properly brought pursuant to Rule 10(e) because she seeks to add new material to the record on appeal that was not before this Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. As set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, 165, is DENIED. (See Order). Copies to parties pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/15/2018. **Emailed to USCA #17-2123 and #17-3101** (APD) Modified on 2/16/2018 (MAT).