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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)


Download Files


Document in Context
October 7, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER - The Court GRANTS Defendants' motions that ask the Court to dismiss Mr. Dorsey's claims. [Filing No. 19; Filing No. 21.] Because the Court cannot provide Mr. Dorsey the relief he seeks at this time, it DENIES his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 24], for the reasons it previously stated when denying a similar motion he filed, [see Filing No. 7 (denying Mr. Dorsey's previous injunction request)]. Mr. Dorsey's claims related to allegedly excessive taxes and the possible tax sale of his property are DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act. No final judgment shall issue at this time. Mr. Dorsey's property damages claims related to Defendants' entry onto his property do not as currently pled state a federal claim upon which this Court can exercise federal jurisdiction. Thus, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, [Filing No. 19; Filing No. 21], and that claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mr. Dorsey has until October 26, 2016 to file an Amended Complaint, should he choose to do so, setting forth a federal claim consistent with the legal principles cited by the Court herein. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/7/2016. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (GSO)
April 20, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - In sum, Mr. Dorsey's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Ms. Frederick for her personal involvement with the allegedly excessive damage to his property shall proceed. All other claims in this action are dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to terminate all Defendants other than Ms. Frederick as parties on the docket. Counsel has already appeared on behalf of Ms. Frederick and shall have 21 days to file an answer or other responsive pleading to the Fourth Amended Complaint, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SEE ORDER. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/20/2017.(JRB)
June 5, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Pro se Plaintiff Victor Dorsey, Jr. has alleged claims against various Defendants in this litigation related to his property on Bellefontaine Street in Indianapolis. [Filing No. 1 at 3-4.] On April 20, 2017, the Court entered an Order dismissing Mr. Dorsey's claims against Defendants the City of Indianapolis (the "City"), Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Marion County Public Health Department, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, and Mark Notthingham for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but did not enter final judgment in favor of those Defendants. [Filing No. 48.] The City has filed a Motion for the Entry of a Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b), [Filing No. 53], and that motion is now ripe for the Court's consideration. The Court finds that entry of final judgment in favor of the City pursuant to Rule 54(b) is appropriate at this point in the litigation. Mr. Dorsey's claims against Ms. Frederick are distinct from the claims he asserted against the City - the claims do not overlap. Additionally, the equities favor entering final judgment in favor of the City, and this course of action will not negatively affect judicial administrative interests. Because there is "no just reason for delay," Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the City's Motion for the Entry of a Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) is GRANTED, [Filing No. 53], and final judgment in favor of the City shall enter accordingly. (See Order). Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/5/2017. (APD)