Taylor v. Williamson et al
| Franchot B Taylor |
| Neil Williamson, Terry Durr, William Strayer, Gregory Clemons and Guy Bouvet |
| 3:2011cv03224 |
| July 20, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Sangamon |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Housing/Accommodations |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
70
OPINION (SEE WRITTEN OPINION): 1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 66 ). The clerk is directed to add Dr. Lochard and Nurse Lucy Clark as Defendants and to attempt service on Lochard and Clark pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiff's motion is otherwise denied. 2) Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied (d/e 67 ). His request to proceed in forma pauperis is also denied because he is already p roceeding in forma pauperis. 3) Plaintiff's motion to subpoena witnesses for trial is denied as premature (d/e 68 ). Plaintiff may renew his motion if this case survives summary judgment. Plaintiff is advised that he will be responsible for s erving the subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.) Sua sponte, the discovery deadline is extended to March 29, 2013. Dispositive motions are due April 30, 2013. The final pretrial conference is rescheduled to November 5, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.. The jury trial is rescheduled to December 3, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. on the Court's trailing trial calendar. 5) A status conference is set for November 5, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. by telephone conference to check on service on Defendants Lochard and Clark. The conference will be cancelled if Lochard and Clark have been served. Accordingly, no writ shall issue to secure Plaintiff's presence at the conference until further order of the Court. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/09/2012. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
65
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied (d/e 54 ).2) Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment are denied (d/e's 43 , 58 ). 3) The merit review order is hereby amended to: 1) clarify that Plaintiff's religious discrimination allegations are part of his First Amendment free exercise claim; and 2) add the possibility of an equal protection claim based on the arbitrary denial of Plaintiff's religious diet requests. 4) Discove ry is reopened and closes on January 31, 2013. 5) Plaintiff's motion to compel his medical records from Sangamon County Jail is denied (d/e 59 ), with leave to renew if his discovery requests to Defendants for the records are unsuccessful. 6) Dispositive motions are due February 28, 2013. 7) A final pretrial conference is scheduled for July 1, 2013 at 1:30 p.m.. Plaintiff shall appear by video conference. Defense counsel shall appear in person. The parties are directed to submit an a greed, proposed final pretrial order at least fourteen days before the final pretrial conference. 8) Jury selection and the jury trial are scheduled for August 6, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., by personal appearance of the parties before this Court in Springfield, Illinois. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/11/2012. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
7
Opinion (See Written Opinion): 1.Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a federal constitutional claim for violation of his First Amendment right to practice his religion. A ny other claims not specifically set forth in this Opinion shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The p laintiff may proceed on his claim against Defendants Neil Williamson, Terry Durr, William Strayer, Gregory Clemons, and Guy Bouvet. 2. A Scheduling Order shall be entered directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. A copy of this Opini on shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order.Defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer must be considered a responsive pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be only to the issues and claims stated in this Opinion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/01/2011. (VM, 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.
