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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-2379 - NAYLOR v. WILLIAMS et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-2379 - NAYLOR v. WILLIAMS et al
August 23, 2017
PDF | More
Entry Screening Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings. The Court notes, however, that on the same date the plaintiff filed this action, he filed another action in this Court against Dr. Talbot. See Case No. 1:17-cv-2380-TWP- TAB. Thus rather than opening a new action against Dr. Talbot, if the plaintiff's claims against Dr. Talbot are to proceed at all, he may present them in Case No. 1:17-cv-2380-TWP-TAB. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice from this action. The clerk is directed to terminate Dr. Talbot as a defendant in this action. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/23/2017.(JDC)
January 16, 2018
PDF | More
Entry Discussing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment - Presently pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the defendant on December 7, 2017. Dkt. No. 19. The defendant's motion argues that the claims alleged against him are barred under the exhaustion provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. ยง 1997e, that requires a prisoner to first exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in court. Mr. Naylor filed a motion to dismiss the defendant's motion for summary judgment on December 13, 2017. Dkt. No. 22. That filing was docketed as a motion to dismiss but is construed by the Court as a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. Because the filing was actually a response to the pending motion for summary judgment, the clerk is directed to terminate the motion to dismiss at Dkt. No. 22. Mr. Naylor argues in his response that he exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a timely appeal. Pursuant to Rule 56(f), the Court gives the defendant notice of its intent to grant summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor on this issue. The defendant shall have through February 9, 2018, in which to show cause why the Court should not grant summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor on this issue. Alternatively, the defendant may withdraw his affirmative defense by this date. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/16/2018. (JDC)