Allen Sharp

In this case, a pro se prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1998 guilty plea conviction for murder and conspiracy to commit robbery, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to seek suppression of a confession obtained after an allegedly illegal arrest. The court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The limitations period began running when the conviction became final in 1998, and the petitioner's argument that it should start later based on newly discovered evidence—a search warrant affidavit obtained in 2006 or 2007—was rejected because the underlying facts about the arrest and search were available earlier through the exercise of due diligence by counsel. Post-conviction proceedings did not toll the expired deadline, and no other exceptions applied.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify several shell corporations associated with American Community Services against claims of negligent hiring arising from violent crimes committed by their door-to-door magazine salespersons. On remand from the Seventh Circuit, the court determined the choice of law for one corporation, Phoenix Imagery, Inc. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that Phoenix Imagery's principal place of business was in Indiana based on its incorporation documents, registered agent, and lack of substantial operations in Illinois. Therefore, Indiana law governs the policies, under which negligent hiring does not constitute an 'occurrence,' and summary judgment in favor of Nautilus was proper.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case was a copyright and unfair competition dispute between Opportunity Knocks, Inc., a designer of promotional cartoon maps, and Bridgette Maxwell and related parties concerning the alleged unauthorized use and sale of similar maps. OKI sued for copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations, and state-law claims including breach of contract and trade secrets violations, while Maxwell counterclaimed with allegations of criminal forgery and deception plus common law unfair competition. The district court ruled on a motion to dismiss two counterclaims and a motion to strike exhibits, granting the motion to strike, denying dismissal of the criminal forgery and deception claim after finding that pecuniary loss had been plausibly alleged under Indiana law, and granting dismissal of the common law unfair competition claim because it was preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves wrongful death claims brought by Victoria Hays, as representative of Jessica Hays's estate, and Martin Ruiz against Christopher Bardasian and Richard Weigandt. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' provision of alcohol on July 4, 2008, violated Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5 and contributed to Jessica's death through negligence, joint enterprise, and related theories. Defendant Weigandt moved for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss the claims and cross-claims for failure to state a claim. The court denied all motions, holding that the Second Amended Complaint and cross-claims allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims under federal pleading standards, including that the furnisher's knowledge of intoxication could be inferred from surrounding circumstances. The case proceeds under diversity jurisdiction to allow discovery.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves pro se plaintiffs suing multiple state and local defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after their infant was removed from their custody in February 2007 following a disputed medical appointment at a county health clinic, alleging violations of due process and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted all seven motions to dismiss filed by the defendants and denied the remaining nondispositive motions as moot. It reasoned that claims against state agencies and officials were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, that the complaint failed to plead plausible claims or a conspiracy under applicable pleading standards, and that statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 provided no private right of action.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involved April Smith, an employee at TJX Companies, who claimed that the company retaliated against her under Title VII after she reported sexual harassment by a regional manager. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and a request for punitive damages. It denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding it suitable for jury determination due to potential genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's actions following the report. However, the court granted summary judgment on the punitive damages claim, concluding that the company had made a good faith effort to comply with Title VII and showed no subjective indifference to its obligations.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involves Annaré Loubser, a pro se plaintiff, who sued over 40 defendants including public officials and private citizens, alleging a conspiracy to fix her state divorce proceedings due to her national origin, in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments and various civil rights statutes such as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The court considered multiple motions for summary judgment and to strike filed by the remaining defendants after prior partial dismissal and remand from the Seventh Circuit. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, reasoning that the plaintiff's claims were unsupported by evidence, vague, and conclusory, failing to satisfy the legal standards for proving conspiracy or constitutional violations as distinguished from mere rhetoric.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

Robert Hayman, a longtime U.S. Postal Service letter carrier over age 40, sued the Postmaster General claiming age and gender discrimination under the ADEA and Title VII plus retaliatory harassment, citing disciplinary actions such as emergency placements, warning letters, a suspension, and supervisor interactions that he alleged treated him worse than similarly situated coworkers. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment after a hearing and supplemental briefing. The court concluded that Hayman had not established a prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to show he met his employer's legitimate expectations and that any actions were pretextual rather than based on legitimate reasons like untimely express mail deliveries; it also found the alleged retaliatory conduct insufficiently adverse to support a claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved migrant agricultural workers who sued their employers, Carlos and Perla Mendoza, for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act after traveling from Texas to Indiana for farm work. The defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit, leading to a default judgment. The court awarded statutory damages totaling $16,950 to the plaintiffs, including minors, for multiple violations including unsafe transportation, inadequate housing, improper wage payments, and lack of required disclosures and licensing. The awards were based on specific provisions of the AWPA, such as sections governing transportation safety, housing standards, and working arrangements, with amounts ranging from $50 to $500 per violation per plaintiff.

labor & employment

In Browell v. Davidson, plaintiff Andrea Browell sued Lafayette police officers Davidson and Wells, Tippecanoe County deputies Conn and Huber, and their respective departments after a November 2004 incident in which her ex-boyfriend broke into her home with a gun, shot her son, and assaulted her, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments plus state-law claims including assault, battery, and negligence. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied the defendants' motions to strike portions of the plaintiff's filings but granted their motions for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the undisputed facts showed no genuine issue of material fact, that the officers' response to the emergency was objectively reasonable under Fourth Amendment standards, and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with no basis for municipal liability or the state claims.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit by Michelle Messer, as administratrix of the estate of Wilmer Messer, against Indiana State Police officers Chad Larsh and Kevin Meyrose in their individual capacities and the Indiana State Police, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, along with related state constitutional and tort claims, arising from events leading to Wilmer Messer's death during a police response on August 17, 2005. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the parties also filed motions to strike certain evidence and hearsay. After reviewing the factual background from officer accounts and forensic evidence, applying the summary judgment standard under Rule 56, and considering qualified immunity and sovereign immunity doctrines, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in full, finding no genuine issues of material fact and that the officers' actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a civil lawsuit by plaintiff Williams against defendant police officer Rod Hainje alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment during an arrest following a vehicle pursuit, specifically regarding the use of a police dog. The court reviewed the defendant's objections to a magistrate judge's report recommending denial of summary judgment and a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit. The court overruled the objections and denied both motions, finding that discrepancies in the plaintiff's accounts created genuine issues of material fact about the degree of resistance offered at the scene of arrest. Applying the Graham v. Connor totality-of-circumstances test, the court determined that viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it was not clear the force used was reasonable, precluding summary judgment and qualified immunity.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, prisoner Eberaia Fields brought a § 1983 action alleging that LaFayette police officers used excessive force during his arrest and that Tippecanoe County jail officers used excessive force by spraying him with pepper spray. The jail officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that Fields had failed to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against the jail officers without prejudice, holding that Fields filed a grievance but did not appeal its denial as required by the jail's grievance policy and the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The decision rested on the principle that exhaustion is a prerequisite to suit, and Fields provided no admissible evidence showing he completed the appeals process.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Michael Daugherty sued his former employer Wabash Center, Inc. and its president Jeffrey Darling, alleging that his termination and failure to be restored to his prior position violated the Family and Medical Leave Act after he took medical leave; a related state-law counterclaim by Rest Assured, L.L.C. for tortious interference and defamation was also at issue. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to strike certain affidavits, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the FMLA claims, and granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice. The core reasoning was that Daugherty failed to establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation under either the direct or indirect method because his documented performance issues, including inappropriate email exchanges and management complaints, provided a legitimate non-retaliatory basis for termination, and as a key employee he had no right to reinstatement; there were no genuine issues of material fact requiring trial.

labor & employment

The case is a federal declaratory judgment action brought by an insurance company against a doctor, his medical entities, numerous malpractice claimants, and the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund administrator. The insurer sought declarations that it had no duty to defend or indemnify due to the doctor's disappearance, failure to cooperate in defending over 300 malpractice claims, and alleged fraudulent consents. The district court reviewed and adopted a magistrate judge's order granting a stay of the federal case. The court reasoned that questions of indemnification were not ripe absent liability findings in the underlying state proceedings and that abstention was warranted to prevent the federal court from resolving issues intertwined with those state malpractice matters.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Wabash National and Vanguard National Trailer over two utility patents (the '651 and '546 patents) that describe joint configurations for linking composite panels in trailer body sidewalls. The court conducted a Markman hearing to construe the meaning and scope of sixteen disputed claim terms from the patents as a matter of law, the first step in a two-part infringement analysis. The opinion applies standard claim construction principles, giving terms their ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art as informed by the patent specifications, prosecution history, and claims themselves. Specific constructions address terms such as "rail," "splicing member," "logistics plate," and related phrases describing panel connections and spacing. The court ultimately adopts constructions that align with the disclosed embodiments and reject narrower interpretations urged by the defendant.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved Monsanto suing Maurice Parr, operator of a mobile seed cleaning business, for inducing patent infringement. Monsanto held patents on its Roundup Ready transgenic trait in soybean seeds, which were licensed to farmers only for single-season use without saving seed for replanting. Parr continued to clean saved Roundup Ready seed for farmers and advised them that saving and replanting was permissible, leading some to infringe. The court granted Monsanto a permanent injunction barring Parr from cleaning the patented seed or encouraging its replanting, found that he had induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), and awarded $40,000 in damages while suspending collection if he complied with the order.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a challenge by several dairy cooperatives and producers to a USDA milk marketing order under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act, which regulates minimum prices paid to dairy farmers in the Mideast region. The plaintiffs alleged flaws in the rulemaking process, including improper participation by agency employees with potential pecuniary interests and inadequate explanation of the agency's decision. The court granted summary judgment to the USDA and intervening dairy companies on all counts, ruling that the plaintiffs had standing but that the agency's actions complied with the Administrative Procedure Act. The core reasoning was that the USDA's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, as its path could be reasonably discerned from the record, and other claims regarding bias or procedure lacked merit.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a pro se plaintiff's sprawling second amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a conspiracy over several years involving state court judges, attorneys, and other participants in underlying rural Indiana judicial proceedings. Following a Seventh Circuit remand that rejected per se dismissal of claims against non-judge defendants after judicial immunity rulings under Stump v. Sparkman, the district court addressed pending motions to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice all defendants who participated solely as witnesses in the state proceedings, applying absolute witness immunity under Briscoe v. LaHue and related precedents. It converted the remaining motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment, set a discovery deadline of December 31, 2007, and established a briefing schedule through June 2008.

civil rightsprocedure

In Church v. Astrue, plaintiff Shari Church sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after prevailing in her appeal of a denial of Social Security Disability Income Benefits by the Commissioner. The court denied the request for fees of $5,914.75. It held that the Commissioner's pre-litigation position was substantially justified because the ALJ's decision, though remanded, was supported by medical evidence and reasons for discounting the weight of certain physicians' opinions, and that the litigation position was substantially justified because it relied on relevant Seventh Circuit case law.

healthcareprocedurefederal power