Pitzer v. City of East Peoria, Illinois et al
Plaintiff: Corine Pitzer
Defendant: City of East Peoria, Illinois and Chad Lacost
Case Number: 1:2008cv01120
Filed: May 27, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Tazewell
Presiding Judge: John A. Gorman
Presiding Judge: Joe Billy McDade
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
April 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/6/11 granting 94 Motion to Dismiss re 94 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Defendants James Pearson & Peoria County, Illinois filed by Corine Pitzer; defendants James M Pearson and Peoria County, Illinois dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).(MSB, ilcd)
November 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER denying Pekin Defendants' 81 Motion for Rule 54(b) Determination. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/17/2010. (RK, ilcd)
April 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER granting 68 Motion to Compel. Plf shall provide disclosures as mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P.26(a)(1) on or before 5/7/2010. Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 4/22/2010. (RK, ilcd)
April 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER denying Dft East Peoria and Peoria County 55 and 60 Motion to Dismiss; and granting Dft Tazewell County and Pekin 58 and 61 Motion to Dismiss. See written Order. Entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/20/2010. (RK, ilcd)
October 26, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 54 ORDER/Opinion entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/26/09. It is Ordered: Plaintiff's Motion for Order Establishing Briefing Schedule or for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 50 is GRANTED. Plf's Second Amended Complaint 49 SHALL be filed as of the date of this Order. Dft's responsive pleadings to the Second Amended Complaint are now DUE (Miscellaneous ddl of 11/6/09). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(E), Dft's pendings Motions to Dismiss, which attack Plf's first A mended Complaint 37 and 39 will be MOOT if not specifically revived within fourteen (14) days of this Order. The pending Consent Motion for Leave to File Responses to Motions to Dismiss of Tazewell County Dfts and Jeffrey Stoltz & City of Pekin 44 is MOOT. See written Order attached.(RK, ilcd) Modified on 10/28/2009 (HK, ilcd).
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 Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pitzer v. City of East Peoria, Illinois 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: Corine Pitzer
Represented By: G Douglas Stephens
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: City of East Peoria, Illinois
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: Chad Lacost
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?