Boyd et al v. Wright et al
| Albert Boyd and All Vegan Recipients of Henry Hill Correctional Center |
| Stephen Wright, James Rundle, Bill Smith and Gerardo Acevedo |
| 1:2009cv01357 |
| October 21, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Knox |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
72
OPINION AND ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 5/10/2011. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) The defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs lack of physical injury is granted [d/e 66]. The plaintiff's claim for compen satory damages for mental or emotional injuries is dismissed, to the extent he pursues such a claim. 2) By May 31, 2011, the parties are directed to inform the court in writing if they agree to attempt to mediate the remainder of this dispute pursua nt to Local Rule 16.4(E). If both parties agree, the court will appoint an available Magistrate Judge to conduct the mediation. The clerk is directed to mail the plaintiff a copy of Local Rule 16.4. 3) The final pretrial and trial dates are vacated and reset as follows. The final pretrial conference is rescheduled to January 5, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.. The plaintiff shall appear by video conference, and the defendant's counsel shall appear in person. The proposed final pretrial order is due December 29, 2011. The jury trial is rescheduled to February 13, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. by personal appearance before this Court at the U.S. Courthouse, 100 N.E. Monroe Street, Peoria, Illinois. (cc: Plaintiff) (KB, ilcd)(KB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 2/28/11: 1)The defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 49). The motion is denied with respect to the First Amendment claim against Defendant James Rundle. Th e motion is granted with respect to the RLUIPA claim and the IRFRA claim, and with respect to all claims against Defendants Wright, Smith and Acevedo. 2)By March 31, 2011, Defendant Rundle is directed to file a supplemental summary judgment motion ad dressing whether the plaintiff suffered a physical injury for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). 3)The clerk of the court is directed to docket as a group entry in this case the affidavits of Stephen Wright, James Rundle and Suzann Griswold which were filed in Walker v. Wright, 09-1177 (d/e 50-4, pp. 1-2; d/e 50-5, pp. 1-24). 4)The clerk is directed to send the plaintiff a copy of Banks v. Dougherty, 2010 WL747870 (N.D. Ill). 5)A final pretrial conference is scheduled for August 19, 2011, at 1:00 p.m.. The plaintiff shall appear by video conference. The defendants' counsel shall appear in person. The parties are directed to submit the proposed final pretrial order by July 29, 2011. The defendants are reminded that they bear the responsibility for preparing the proposed final pretrial order. 6)The clerk is directed to issue a video writ to secure the plaintiff's appearance at the final pretrial conference. 7)The proposed final pretrial order must include the names of a ll witnesses to be called at the trial. Nonparty inmate-witnesses will give their trial testimony by video. Other nonparty witnesses may appear by video at the Court's discretion. The proposed pretrial order must include the names and addresse s of any witnesses for whom trial subpoenas are sought. The parties are responsible for obtaining and serving any necessary subpoenas, as well as providing the necessary witness and mileage fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 8)A jury trial is scheduled for September 12, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., at the U.S.Courthouse, 100 N.E. Monroe Street, Peoria, Illinois. The plaintiff and Defendant Rundle shall appear in person. The Clerk is directed to issue the appropriate process to secure the personal appearance of the plaintiff at the trial and the video appearances of the video witnesses. (cc: plaintiff with a copy of Banks v. Dougherty)(MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/21/09: 1) This case is severed into the following two separate cases: 1) Jermaine Walker v.Stephen Wright et al., case no. 09-1177; and 2) Albert Boyd v. Stephen Wright et al., which shall be assigned a ne w case number by the clerk. Plaintiff Albert Boyd is terminated from case 09-1177. The clerk is directed to assign the same law clerk number to Plaintiff Boyd's case as is assigned in Plaintiff Walker's case. The clerk is directed to doc ket this order in both cases. The clerk is further directed to notify the parties of the new case number in Boyd v. Wright. 2) The Court enters the following scheduling deadlines in both cases: a)Within 30 days of the entry of this order, the partie s shall provide to each other the initial disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(i)-(ii), as modified below, specifically: (i)the name and, if known, the work title and work address (ifapplicable) of each individual likely to have discover able information along with the subjects of that informationthat the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment; and(ii)a copyor a description by category and locationof all documents, e lectronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment. b)Plaintiff shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by December 31, 2009. c)The defendants shall disclose expert witnesses and expert testimony pursuant to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by January 2 9,2010. d)Discovery closes March 31, 2010. The plaintiff's incarceration limits him to written discovery. Written discovery must be served on a party at least 30 days before the discovery deadline. Discovery requests are not filed with the co urt, unless there is a dispute regarding such discovery. SeeCDIL-LR 26.3. Motions to compel discovery must be accompanied by the relevant portions of the discovery request and the response. Additionally, except for good cause shown, motions to comp el must be filed within 14 days of receiving an unsatisfactory response to a timely discovery request. e)Dispositive motions are due April 30, 2010. A trial will be scheduled, if necessary, after the court rules on dispositive motions. (cc: plaintiffs)(MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/21/09denying 29 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 30 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (cc: plaintiff) (MSB, ilcd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
