CARLYLE v. AUGUSTINOWICZ

S.D. Indiana

CARLYLE v. AUGUSTINOWICZ

DecidedJanuary 8, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01769

StatusUnknown

This text of CARLYLE v. AUGUSTINOWICZ (CARLYLE v. AUGUSTINOWICZ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CARLYLE v. AUGUSTINOWICZ, (S.D. Ind. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DENNIS WAYNE CARLYLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-01769-JPH-TAB ) JEFFERY AUGUSTINOWICZ Indianapolis ) Metropolitan Police Officer, ) NATHANIEL SHALLER Indianapolis ) Metropolitan Police Officer, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Mr. Carlyle filed this case in October 2024, seeking to bring a § 1983 claim against two Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officers. Dkt. 1. The Court screened his complaint, and ordered Mr. Carlyle to show cause by November 8, 2024, as to why his claims should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, and explained that failing to do so may result in the dismissal of the case. Dkt. 5. Mr. Carlyle did not respond prior to the deadline, and the Court dismissed the case and entered final judgment on November 21, 2024. Dkts. 6, 7. On December 27, 2024, Mr. Carlyle filed a motion for a more definite statement from the Court as to his case and its dismissal. Dkt. 8. Mr. Carlyle's motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court reiterates that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is two years. Johnson v. City of South Bend, 680 F. App’x 475, 476 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Ind. Code § 34-11- 2-4; Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v. Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2005)); Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2013). This means that Mr. Carlyle would have had to bring this lawsuit within two years after March 11, 2020—the date on which he alleges Officers Augustinowicz and Shaller violated his constitutional rights. Mr. Carlyle did not bring this case until October 8, 2024, more than four years after March 11, 2020. The Court gave Mr. Carlyle the opportunity to show cause as to why his case was not time-barred, but he failed to do so. Consequently, his case was dismissed as being barred by the statute of limitations, as it was filed more than two years too late. This case remains closed. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/8/2025 <) amu Patnwk \ta wl , James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: DENNIS WAYNE CARLYLE 3833 Cedar Ridge Road 2-C Indianapolis, IN 46235

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DENNIS WAYNE CARLYLE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:24-cv-01769-JPH-TAB ) JEFFERY AUGUSTINOWICZ Indianapolis ) Metropolitan Police Officer, ) NATHANIEL SHALLER Indianapolis ) Metropolitan Police Officer, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Mr. Carlyle filed this case in October 2024, seeking to bring a § 1983 claim against two Indianapolis Metropolitan Police officers. Dkt. 1. The Court screened his complaint, and ordered Mr. Carlyle to show cause by November 8, 2024, as to why his claims should not be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations, and explained that failing to do so may result in the dismissal of the case. Dkt. 5. Mr. Carlyle did not respond prior to the deadline, and the Court dismissed the case and entered final judgment on November 21, 2024. Dkts. 6, 7. On December 27, 2024, Mr. Carlyle filed a motion for a more definite statement from the Court as to his case and its dismissal. Dkt. 8. Mr. Carlyle's motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Court reiterates that the statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim is two years. Johnson v. City of South Bend, 680 F. App’x 475, 476 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Ind. Code § 34-11- 2-4; Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v. Hobart City of Common Council, 406 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2005)); Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 591 (7th Cir. 2013). This means that Mr. Carlyle would have had to bring this lawsuit within two years after March 11, 2020—the date on which he alleges Officers Augustinowicz and Shaller violated his constitutional rights. Mr. Carlyle did not bring this case until October 8, 2024, more than four years after March 11, 2020. The Court gave Mr. Carlyle the opportunity to show cause as to why his case was not time-barred, but he failed to do so. Consequently, his case was dismissed as being barred by the statute of limitations, as it was filed more than two years too late. This case remains closed. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/8/2025 <) amu Patnwk \ta wl , James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: DENNIS WAYNE CARLYLE 3833 Cedar Ridge Road 2-C Indianapolis, IN 46235

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CARLYLE v. AUGUSTINOWICZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlyle-v-augustinowicz-insd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack