ROGERS v. PSI OFFICER et al
Filing
11
Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The complaint was dismissed because, for a number of reasons set out in the Court's Entry of that date, dkt. 3 , it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Court's screening entry of July 12, 2017, this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now enter. See entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/19/2017. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (MEJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
DURYEA ROGERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PSI OFFICER (name unknown),
WILLIAM L. MCCOSKEY AUSA,
U.S. ATT’S OFFICE Indianapolis Division,
CIRCUIT COURT PUBLISHER (name
unknown), et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:17-cv-02294-TWP-MJD
Entry Dismissing Action and
Directing Entry of Final Judgment
Plaintiff Duryea Rogers commenced this Bivens action on July 6, 2017, asserting claims
against defendants because, in a published circuit court opinion, he had been erroneously described
as having testified against a co-defendant. When the circuit court’s error was brought to its
attention, a corrected opinion was released. Not satisfied with the correction, plaintiff brought this
action against an unknown pre-sentence investigation officer, the assistant United States Attorney
who had prosecuted him, the Indianapolis division of the United States Attorney’s Office, and an
unknown “Circuit Court Publisher.” Plaintiff’s complaint was screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) on July 12, 2017. The complaint was dismissed because, for a number of reasons set
out in the Court’s Entry of that date, dkt. 3, it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
Plaintiff was allowed through August 15, 2017, in which to show cause why the action
should not be dismissed and judgment entered. He was warned that the failure to respond by that
deadline would result in this action’s dismissal without further notice. While plaintiff has tended
to the fee issues as directed in other Entries, and he has paid the initial partial filing fee, he has not
attempted to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Court’s screening entry of July 12, 2017, this
action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 9/18/2017
Distribution:
Duryea Rogers
11604-028
Pekin Federal Correctional Institution
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 5000
Pekin, IL 61555
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?