Ware v. Randolph et al
| Eric Ware |
| Austin Randolph, Ed Huggins, Seth Osafo, Tracy Neuendorf, Endress, Woods, . Raines and . Brown |
| 3:2007cv03013 |
| January 12, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Fulton |
| Harold A. Baker |
| Charles H. Evans |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Defendant |
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
161
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/31/2009. The plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e's 155 and 160) are denied. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that the appeal is not in g ood faith. The plaintiff has earned more than three strikes and, he is not in imminent danger, and therefore, he cannot proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The plaintiff is ordered to remit to the clerk of the court the $455.00 appellate fee within 14 days of the date of this order (by 4/14/2009).(MAS, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
152
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 56(c), Defendants' summary judgment motion 108 is allowed as to Plaintiffs claims that Huggins and Randolph violated Plaintiff's First Amendment claim that they refused to a llow him to mail correspondence and letters with drawings and/or notes on the envelopes. The clerk of the court is directed to entered judgment for Huggins and Randolph on this claim, forthwith. Pursuant to Section 1997e(a), the Plaintiff's re maining claims as discussed supra are dismissed, without prejudice. Any remaining matters are rendered moot and the clerk of the court is directed to terminate this lawsuit in its entirety. If the plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he may f ile a notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues the plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 24(a)(1)(C). If the plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $455.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. Furthermore, if the appeal is found to be non-meritorious, the plaintiff may also accumulate another strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 9/24/08. (ME, 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.
