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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-2910 - IGOU v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-2910 - IGOU v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
February 23, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff Lance Igou is a 29-year old inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility. [Filing No. 1 at 1.] In his Complaint, Mr. Igou alleges that while incarcerated, he has been denied treatment for an eye condition, resulting in permanent vision impairment and the potential loss of his eye. [Filing No. 1 at 4-10.] He raises four claims in this matter: (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, under the standard articulated in Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (3) violation of Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 16; and (4) negligence. [Filing No. 1 at 10-13.] Mr. Igou requests an injunction requiring treatment of his eye, damages, attorneys' fees, and any other relief that may be just and proper. [Filing No. 1 at 13-14.] Defendants Hanna Winningham, Megan Miller, and Corizon, LLC (collectively "Defendants") have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).1 [Filing No. 33.] That Motion is currently ripe for the Court's review. For the reasons described above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count III, 33, but only to the extent that Count III seeks monetary damages. In any other way, the claim stated in Count III remains pending in this case. No partial final judgment shall issue. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/23/2018. (APD)
June 11, 2018
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 71 First MOTION for Sanctions for bad faith filing of exhaustion defense - The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 71 and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Sanctions72 be denied. Any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation shall be filed with the Clerk in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file timely objections within fourteen days after service shall constitute waiver of subsequent review absent a showing of good cause for such failure. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 6/11/2018.(JRB)
July 20, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge submitted his Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Sanctions 86. The parties were afforded due opportunity pursuant to statute and the rules of this Court to file objections; none were filed. The Court, having considered the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 86. The Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 71 and Defendants' Cross-Motion for Sanctions 72 are DENIED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/20/2018.(APD)