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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-3026 - HEINRICH et al v. MCCORKLE et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-3026 - HEINRICH et al v. MCCORKLE et al
March 14, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - The only issue Mr. Baker alleged in his Complaint that is arguably related to overcrowding, however, is increased fighting due to housing too many inmates in the same area. Accordingly, he is limited to pursuing claims related to overcrowding in his cell block, and increased fighting due to that overcrowding. Mr. Baker failed to raise, and/or exhaust administrative remedies for, any other claims. The Court finds that: * The Jail's grievance procedure was sufficiently clear such that inmates were required to file initial grievances in order to exhaust their administrative remedies; * The Jail's appeals process was vague and unknown to inmates, so inmates were not required to appeal initial grievance decisions in order to exhaust their administrative remedies; The issue of overcrowding was beyond the control of Jail officials so, according to the grievance procedure set forth in the Inmate Handbook, Mr. Baker was not required to file a grievance related to overcrowding in order to exhaust his administrative remedies; * Mr. Baker was required to file grievances to complain about Jail conditions unrelated to overcrowding - including issues he raised in the Complaint relating to mold, not being permitted to use the recreation area, and being forced to sleep naked in a padded cell shared with another naked inmate - and did not do so; *Mr. Baker may proceed with this litigation on the issues of overcrowding in his cell block and increased fighting caused by overcrowding. (See Order for additional details.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/14/2017.(RSF)
June 6, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff Christopher Baker initiated this putative class action while an inmate at the Henry County Jail (the "Jail"). He alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated because the Jail is overcrowded. [See Filing No. 1.] Several pending motions are now ripe for the Court's decision, and are addressed in this Order. For the reasons discussed in this Order: Mr. Baker's Motion to Reconsider Ruling Dismissing Named Plaintiffs, [Filing No. 69], is DENIED; Mr. Baker's Motion to Delay Ruling on Summary Judgment Until Defendants Respond to Requests for Production, [Filing No. 80], is DENIED; Mr. Baker's Motion to Request an Order Foreshortening the Response Time for Discovery, [Filing No. 27], is DENIED AS MOOT; Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 71], is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Mr. Baker's individual claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because those claims are moot, but the motion is DENIED IN PART to the extent that the Court finds that the putative class claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are not moot and may proceed to the class certification stage; Mr. Baker's Motion for Leave to Substitute Proposed Class Representative, [Filing No. 77], is DENIED AS MOOT; The Court takes the Motion for Class Certification, [Filing No. 13], UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court ORDERS Mr. Baker to file by July 7, 2017 either: (1) a supplementary brief in support of his Motion for Class Certification, addressing whether Mr. Baker is an adequate class representative; or (2) a Motion for Leave to Substitute, should counsel wish to substitute a different individual who might fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class as the Named Plaintiff as required by Rule 23(a)(4). Defendants shall file any response to either motion by July 21, 2017, and Mr. Baker may file any reply by July 28, 2017; Mr. Baker's Motion for Clarification, [Filing No. 70], is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as discussed above; and Mr. Baker's Motion to Determine Conflict of Interest, [Filing No. 26], is DENIED. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/6/2017. (APD)
January 19, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff Christopher Baker brings this action on behalf of current or future persons confined at the Henry County, Indiana Jail (the "Jail"), and alleges that the Jail is overcrowded in violation of his and the class members' constitutional rights. Presently pending before the Court is Mr. Baker's Motion to Approve Notice to Henry County Jail Class Members. [Filing No. 109.] For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court DENIES IN PART Mr. Baker's Motion to Approve Notice to Henry County Jail Class Members, 109, to the extent that it does not approve Mr. Baker's proposed Class Notice, [Filing No. 109-1], but GRANTS IN PART the motion to the extent that it approves the Class Notice attached as Exhibit 1 to this Order, which incorporates language from both Mr. Baker's proposed Class Notice and Defendants' proposed Class Notice. To the extent any party objects to the Class Notice attached as Exhibit 1, it must file an objection by February 2, 2018. If no objections are filed, notice shall be provided in a manner agreed upon by the parties, and the parties shall file a report reflecting their agreement on or before February 23, 2018. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/19/2018. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Class Notice) (APD)
March 20, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER SUSTAINS re 118 Defendants' Objections to Proposed Class Notice, to the extent that it approves the Class Notice attached to this Order as Exhibit 1. Notice shall be provided in a manner agreed upon by the parties, and the parties shall file a report reflecting their agreement on or before April 13, 2018. Additionally, the Court MODIFIES its July 28, 2017 Order to reflect that it certifies the following class: Any and all persons currently confined or who will in the future be confined in the Henry County Jail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/20/2018. (Attachments: # (1) Class Notice)(CBU)