Johnson et al v. Doe #1 et al
Plaintiff: Mark Howard Johnson
Defendant: John Doe #1, John Doe #3, Jane Doe #4 and Jane Doe #2
Case Number: 1:2010cv03440
Filed: June 4, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Lawrence
Presiding Judge: Virginia M. Kendall
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
January 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 36 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Gary Feinerman on 1/14/2011: Defendant Randles motion to dismiss 26 is granted. Former IDOC Director Michael Randle is dismissed as a defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The clerk is directed to : (1) file the second amended complaint; (2) add Marcus Hardy, Carly Zeigler, Jerlen Allen, and Heather Parkins as defendants; (3) terminate Michael Randle and John Does 1-4; and (4) issue summonses for service on the defendants by the U.S. Marshal. The previously set answer deadline of January 30, 2011 31 , is stricken, as service must first be effected. In addition, the status conference scheduled for February 14, 2011, at 9:45 a.m. 31 34 is stricken. The cause will be re-set once counsel enters an appearance for the newly named defendants.Mailed notice (For further details see Written Opinion) (nf, )
August 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 9 WRITTEN Opinion: The Clerk is directed to: (1) add IDOC Director Michael Randle as a Defendant pursuant to the amended complaint, solely for the purpose of identifying the John Doe officials in question; (2) issue summons for service on Randle; and (3) mail Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. (For further details see written opinion). Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 8/5/2010. Mailed notice.(jj, )
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: Johnson et al v. Doe #1 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: Mark Howard Johnson
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: John Doe #1
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: John Doe #3
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: Jane Doe #4
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: Jane Doe #2
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?