Gevas v. McLaughlin et al
| David Gevas |
| C McLaughlin, Wayne Steele, . Bryan, David Unsworth, . Price, Richard . Hall, Cornealious Sanders, Michael Chapin, S Wright, G Acevado and Roger Walker, Jr |
| 1:2008cv01379 |
| December 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Knox |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
312
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/18/2016: IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Bill of Costs (Doc. 310 ) is partially GRANTED. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the amount should be offset by the amount owed Plaint iff for his successful appeal. Although the Court was unable to find a similar situation such as the one here, the Court was wide discretion to fashion awards of costs. Northbrook Excess & Surplus Ins. Co. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 924 F.2d 633, 642 (7th Cir. 1991). Therefore, Defendants are AWARDED $38.75 in costs; the Clerk SHALL prepare an amended judgment against Plaintiff awarding $38.75 in costs to Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. (SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER) (JRK, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
194
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 1/27/12 - Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants McLaughlin, Nicholas Bryan, Duane Price, and David Unsworth, and against Plaintiff David Gevas on the retaliation claim. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of these Defendants at the close of the case. As there are no remaining claims against Defendants Nicholas Bryan, Duane Price, and David Unsworth since they were found not to be a part o f Plaintiffs Failure to Protect Claim by Order of December 9,2010, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to terminate these Defendants forthwith. The only pending claims left for disposition are Plaintiffs Failure to Protect claims against Defendants Way ne Steele, S. Wright, and C. McLaughlin. Mr. Wright is alleged to be the Acting Assistant Warden for Operations, and the Court questions whether Plaintiff can show his personal involvement to the extent required by law to make Defendant Wright liabl e. Upon review of the Complaint, the Court also questions whether Plaintiff has pled a claim against Defendant McLaughlin alleging his personal involvement. Defendants Wright and McLaughlin are each invited to file a summary judgment motion within fourteen(14) days to determine whether or not a trial is required. This case is set for a final pretrial conference with counsel for the parties on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 1:30 P.M., in Peoria, in Courtroom D, in accordance with Local Rule 16.3(I) . Counsel are reminded that under Local Rule 16.3(J), failure to comply with the requirement of the rule is sanctionable. This case is further set for jury trial on Monday, June 4, 2012 at 9:00 A.M., in person in Courtroom D at Peoria, Illinois. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue a writ for Plaintiffs personal appearance at the jury trial on Monday, June 4, 2012 at 9:00 A.M. (SF, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
157
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 1/6/2011: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. The plaintiff may proceed on his retaliation claims against McLaughin, Bryan, Unsworth and Price. 2.The plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Hall fails t o state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As the plaintiff has made no other allegations against Hall,pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 12(b)(6), Hall is dismissed as a defendant in this lawsuit. The clerk of the court is directed to termin ate Hall as a defendant, forthwith. 3.The plaintiff may not proceed on a claim of retaliation against Steele. See the court's December 7, 2010 order denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add a claim of retaliation against St eele. 4.The plaintiff fails to state a claim of violation of his due process against Chapin and Sanders. Further, the plaintiff fails to state a claim of retaliation against Chapin and Sanders. As the plaintiff has no other allegations against Cha pin and Sanders, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Rule Civ. Pro. Rule 12(b)(6), Chapin and Sanders are terminated as defendants in this lawsuit. The clerk of the court is directed to terminate Chapin and Sanders as defendants, forthwith. 5.The parties are allowed an additional 45 days of discovery on the retaliation claims. Written requests for discovery must be served on a party at least 30 days before the discovery deadline. Any further dispositive motions must be filed on or before March 31, 2011. The plaintiff is forewarned that failure to cooperate with discovery will lead to a dismissal of his entire lawsuit. A status conference is scheduled for Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., via telephone conference. (cc: plaintiff) (MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
154
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/9/10: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Defendants Walker and Acevedo are granted summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim of failure to protect. As there are no remaining cla ims against Defendants Walker and Acevedo, the clerk of the court is directed to terminate these Defendants, forthwith. The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Walker and Acevedo at the close of the case. (2) If th e plaintiff wishes to appeal this order, he must file 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 t o 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 a strike under 28 U.S.C.1915(g). (cc: plaintiff)(MSB, 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.
