ROWE v. FINNAN et al
ENTRY Discussing Cross Motions for Summary Judgment - For the reasons explained later in this Entry and in the interest of clarity, the Indiana Department of Correction is now substituted for the individual defendants named in their official ca pacities as to the RLUIPA claims. The only remaining remedies Rowe is entitled to seek in this action for the alleged RLUIPA violations are equitable in nature. If Rowe requests counsel to represent him at the bench trial of this action, the court will undertake efforts to attempt to recruit counsel to represent him for that purpose. Rowe shall have through March 20, 2014, to make such a request. Consistent with the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [dkt. 128 ] is denied and the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. 89 ] is granted in part and denied in part. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claims resolved in this Entry. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus -Stinson on 3/3/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Zero Tolerence STG Policy, # 2 Exhibit B - Offender Visitation Policy, # 3 Exhibit C - Segregation Correspondence Policy, # 4 Exhibit D - Item Censorship, # 5 Exhibit E - Religious Handbook, # 6 Exhibit F - Aryan Nations Standard)(JKS)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?