Donald Trump tweeted Friday morning that he has offered Indiana #GovMikePence a place on his presidential ticket, choosing the hoosier to be his vice presidential running mate over former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT – BOWLING v. PENCE
Michelle and Shannon were married in Polk County, Iowa on January 18, 2011. They currently reside in Marion County, Indiana, with Michelle’s children from a prior relationship. Shannon is employed by the Department of Corrections of the State of Indiana. Through this employment, Shannon is eligible to participate in the State’s benefit plans managed by Defendant, Anita Samuel, Executive Director of the Indiana Department of State Personnel; however, the state will not recognize Michelle as her spouse or Michelle’s children for such benefits because of Section 31-11-1-1(b). This causes both parties economic harms and stigmatic harms.
Linda married her wife, Lori, on July 20, 2013, after nearly seven years of dating. Unfortunately, Linda’s and Lori’s marriage has reached a point where they have irreconcilable differences, and Linda has received a protective order against her wife. Linda filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage in the Marion Superior Court under Cause Number 49D05-1301-DR-3893. The Marion Superior Court dismissed the action, sua sponte, finding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction because of Section 31-11-1-1. Linda filed a motion to correct errors, which the trial court denied. Linda plans to file her Notice of Appeal with the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The Governor has repeatedly represented to this court that he does not have “any authority to enforce, or other role respecting, Indiana Code Section 31-11-11-1.” (Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing No. 26, at ECF p. 17). Based on this representation and an absence of statutory authority allowing the governor to issue executive decrees telling other elected officials how to do their jobs, the court previously granted summary judgment in favor of the Governor. See Baskin, 12 F.Supp.3d at 1152-53, 2014 WL 2884868 at *4; see also Love v. Pence, 28 F.Supp.3d 793, No. 4:14-cv-15-RLY-TAB, 2014 WL 2881569 (S.D.Ind.2014).
SUMMARY OF EXODUS REFUGEE IMMIGRATION, INC., Plaintiff, V. MIKE PENCE
The Court incorporates by reference the background facts set forth in the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (the “Preliminary Injunction Order”). (See Filing No. 70 at 3-8.) On February 29, 2016, the Court issued its Preliminary Injunction Order, which enjoined the State “from taking any actions to interfere with or attempt to deter the resettlement of Syrian refugees by Exodus in the State of Indiana, including by withholding from Exodus funds and services due Exodus and the refugees it serves.” (Filing No. 70 at 35). Shortly thereafter, the State filed a Notice of Appeal, notifying the Court that it is appealing the Preliminary Injunction Order. Contemporaneously, the State filed the instant motion for a stay pending appeal. Exodus has filed a response and the motion is now ripe for ruling.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
TANYA WALTON PRATT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) by Defendants Governor Mike Pence and John Wernert, the Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (collectively, “the State”). (Filing No. 74.) On February 29, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. (“Exodus”) a preliminary injunction. The State has appealed that decision and seeks with its current motion a stay pending the resolution of its appeal. The legal standards governing whether a stay should be granted are the same as those governing whether a preliminary injunction should be granted in the first instance. Therefore, as explained in more detail below, essentially the same reasons justifying a preliminary injunction also justify declining to stay that injunction pending appeal. Accordingly, the State’s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED.
Wait for it, wait for it…
Syrian Christian’s life living under Isis example, every Friday they execute people the first beheading of a man in public was traumatic the man suffered because they couldn’t behead him with the first cut. The man suffered so much they finally killed him with a gunshot, according to an article published by Carey Lodge of Christian Today.
EDWARD M. HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MIKE PENCE, BRUCE LEMMON, Defendants.
The complaint names three defendants: 1) the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”); 2) Governor Mike Pence; and 3) IDOC Commissioner Bruce Lemmon. The plaintiff alleges that he was placed on the Restricted Movement Unit (“RMU”) at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”) on October 30, 2015. He alleges that he was denied the opportunity to go to the law library while he was in the RMU in violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He further alleges that “[t]he IDOC has allowed Wabash Valley to commit illegal acts regarding their RMU for years and the Governor’s duty is to oversee the Commissioner who is given his job by the Governor.” The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of closing the RMU, as well as punitive damages.
Any claim for injunctive relief is dismissed as moot because the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at Wabash Valley.
Wait for it, wait for it…
The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is granted. The plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Three Dollars and Ninety-Three Cents ($3.93). He shall have through January 19, 2016, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court.