Boyd v. Alcoke et al
Plaintiff: Steven D. Boyd
Defendant: Matthew R. Alcoke and United States Government
Case Number: 1:2009cv06856
Filed: October 30, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Kankakee
Presiding Judge: Matthew F. Kennelly
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 14, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 150 MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S PRO SE STATUS signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 8/14/2013. (mk)
August 8, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 145 MEMORANDUM REGARDING PROPOSED DEFENSE EXHIBITS signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 8/8/2013. (mk)
June 27, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 130 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 6/27/2013: Plaintiff's custodial agency is directed to make monthly deductions from Plaintiff's trust fund account for payment to the Clerk of Court in accordance with this o rder. Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments until the appellate fees of $455 are paid in their entirety. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the trust fund officer at the Federal Correctional Institute Terre Haute, Indiana, and to the PLRA attorney, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The payment obligation follows Plaintiff to whatever custodial institution to which he may be transferred. [For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (ao,)
December 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 100 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 12/26/2012. (ao,)
August 27, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 44 WRITTEN Opinion Signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 8/27/2010: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint # 34 is granted. Defendant's motion to dismiss # 16 is denied as moot. However, Plaintiff must submit a secon d amended complaint, as the one he has submitted isunacceptable. Failure of Plaintiff to comply with these directives within thirty days will result in summary dismissal of this case. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff an amended complaint form, and instructions along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff's motion for pre-trial conference # 37 is denied. Plaintiff's motions to compel initial disclosures pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 26(a) [# 40 & # 42 ] are denied. [ For further details see minute order.]Mailed notice (hp, )
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Boyd v. Alcoke et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steven D. Boyd
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Matthew R. Alcoke
Represented By: AUSA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: United States Government
Represented By: AUSA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?