Filing 46

MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson: On May 17, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the parties' Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37 ]. Plaintiffs were present by co unsel Michael Sutherlin. Defendant Sheriff Greg Ewing was present in person and by counsel Craig McKee, David Friedrich, and Michael Wright. The remaining Defendants were present by counsel David Friedrich and Michael Wright. The court reporter wa s Jean Knepley. The Court DENIES IN PART WITH EXPLANATION the Joint Motion to Approve Stipulation and Class Certification to the extent it requests approval of the Joint Stipulation. [Filing No. 37 ] The Court, therefore, ACCEPTS the Proposed Join t Stipulation, [Filing No. 44 ] The Court GRANTS IN PART the Joint Motion to Approve Joint Stipulation and Class Certification, [Filing No. 37 ], to the extent that it seeks class certification, and likewise GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Cla ss Certification, [Filing No. 10 ]. The joint stipulation filed on March 27, 2017 [Filing No. 36 ] is WITHDRAWN. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, [Filing No. 12 ], remains pending. (SEE ORDER FOR MORE DETAILS.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson. (Court Reporter Jean Knepley.) (Attachments: # 1 Class Notice)(MRI)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION JAUSTON HUERTA, THOMAS BOLTON, JR., CURTIS GILLIE, CARL SHERB, DEREK HICKS, and DURAND RANDLE, Plaintiffs, vs. GREG EWING, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:16-cv-00397-JMS-DKL EXHIBIT 1 – CLASS NOTICE Several claims in this case have been certified as a class action lawsuit. The class is defined as: All inmates in the care and custody of Vigo County, Indiana from October 13, 2016 to the present, including the current and future inmates who are or will be incarcerated in the Vigo County Jail and all current and future individuals who were transported to other county jails as a result of the overcrowding in the Vigo County Jail. The parties have agreed on a Stipulation that provides a timeline for the selection of a new jail site, commencement of construction, and completion of the jail. In the meantime, the Sheriff has a duty to maintain and operate a jail that meets the requirements of state and federal law. These requirements may necessitate relocation of detainees and inmates to other county jails with adequate space. Your rights to meet with your attorney, whether a public defender or one retained by you, are not impacted by your relocation to another county and you should be allowed to meet with counsel and prepare your defense to criminal charges regardless of where you are detained. Counsel for the Plaintiff Class will monitor the actions of the Vigo County Officials, who are committed to building a new jail facility. As a member of the class, you are entitled to know the status of the case. Plaintiffs’ counsel will from time to time issue a Status Report. The attorneys for the Plaintiff Class will be paid fees and costs by the Defendants. That amount has not been determined. This class action does not entitle you to any damages merely because you are a member of the class or merely because you have been in the Vigo County Jail on or after October 13, 2016. The claim that has been certified for the class does not include any claim for personal injury of any of the class members. You may contact your attorney if you believe you have suffered individual harm while detained or incarcerated at the Vigo County Jail. There is a two-year statute of -1- limitations from the date of your injury and if you consider the action of the jail officers to be negligence, you must file a Tort Claim Notice within 180 days of the date your injury occurred. You may contact the class counsel in this matter at the following address: Michael K. Sutherlin Michael K. Sutherlin and Associates P.O. Box 441095 Indianapolis, IN 46244-1095 -2-

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?