Ladyman v. Meade et al, No. 3:2014cv02038 - Document 42 (N.D. Ind. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court STRIKES claims against defendants Shelley Gupta, Charles C. Wicks, and Dean O. Burton from the amended complaint as redundant, immaterial and impertinent in light of the prior ruling of September 29, 2016 [DE 20 at 9] dismissing plaintiff Ladyman's claims against these defendants with prejudice. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 6/20/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)

Download PDF
Ladyman v. Meade et al Doc. 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION CRAIG C. LADYMAN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. NICHOLAS MEADE, et al., Respondent. CAUSE NO. 3:14CV2038-PPS OPINION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Craig Ladyman brings this case alleging various violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a traffic stop, the subsequent search of his vehicle, his arrest and his prosecution. In his ruling on a motion to dismiss, the district judge who previously presided over this case dismissed with prejudice Ladyman’s claims against prosecutor Shelley Gupta, Elkhart Superior Court Judge Charles C. Wicks, and Magistrate Dean O. Burton. [DE 20 at 9.] Despite this ruling, Ladyman thereafter filed an amended complaint in which he again named Gupta, Wicks and Burton as defendants and reiterated his claims against them. Because the claims had been dismissed with prejudice, the inclusion of them in the amended complaint constitutes redundant, immaterial and impertinent matter subject to being stricken under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f)(1). ACCORDINGLY: The claims against defendants Shelley Gupta, Charles C. Wicks, and Dean O. Burton are stricken from the amended complaint as redundant, immaterial and Dockets.Justia.com impertinent in light of the prior ruling of September 29, 2016 [DE 20 at 9] dismissing plaintiff Ladyman’s claims against these defendants with prejudice. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: June 20, 2017. /s/ Philip P. Simon United States District Court Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.