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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-319 - JONES v. J.R. CARAWAY et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-319 - JONES v. J.R. CARAWAY et al
March 13, 2015
PDF | More
Entry Discussing Complaint, Dismissing Certain Claims, and Directing Further Proceedings - Plaintiff Andre Jones, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, brings this lawsuit pursuant to the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. Based on the following screening, certain claims will proceed while others will be dismissed. Any claim against a defendant in his or her official capacity must be dismissed. The claims against Warden Caraway must be dismissed. Claims against John Doe defendants must be dismissed. Any Fifth Amendment claim based on these facts is dismissed. Mr. Jones's Eighth Amendment claim based on the injuries he suffered after falling from his top bunk shall proceed against M. Tattlock. All other claims are dismissed. The clerk shall terminate J.R. Caraway, John Doe Health Services Administrator, and John Doe Corrections Officer as defendants in this action.Mr. Jones's Eighth Amendment claim based on the injuries he suffered after falling from his top bunk shall proceed against M. Tattlock. All other claims are dismissed. The clerk shall terminate J.R. Caraway, John Doe Health Services Administrator, and John Doe Corrections Officer as defendants in this action. The clerk is designated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), to issue process to defendant Tattlock. Process shall consist of a summons. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/13/2015.(RSF)
April 28, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Denying Motion for Summary Judgment - Plaintiff Andre Jones, a former inmate of the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana ("USP Terre Haute"), brings this lawsuit pursuant to the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Jones asserts that defendant correctional officer Tatlock, who is responsible for assigning cells and bunks, knew that Jones suffers from seizures, but failed to ensure that Jones was assigned to a bottom bunk. Jones alleges that this denial violated his Eighth Amendment rights because he later fell from his upper bunk and was injured. Tatlock moved for summary judgment and Jones has responded. Because there is a dispute of fact regarding whether Tatlock was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of harm to Jones, Tatlock's motion for summary judgment 27 is denied. Further proceedings in this action will be directed by a separate order. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/28/2016. (RSF)