Sandon v. Bureau of Prisons et al
| Mark Louis Sandon |
| Bureau of Prisons, Newton Kendig, Jeff Allen, Mike Nelson and C. L. Polland |
| 1:2009cv01003 |
| February 12, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Plaintiff |
| U.S. Government Defendant |
| 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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
61
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/4/10 granting 59 Motion to Dismiss: 1) The plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss this case is granted pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [d/e 59] All pending motions are denied as moot. [d/e 54, 55] The case is dismissed without prejudice. 2) The plaintiff is still responsible for the payment of the $350 filing fee. (cc: plaintiff) (MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
38
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 2/13/09: 1) Pursuant to its merit review of the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states the following federal claim: Defendants Warden D.Smith, Assistant Warden Norment, Administrative Health Service Administrator D. Dintelman, Clinical Director Dr. Scott Moats and Dr. R. Kabatay violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medi cal conditions. 2) All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph one (1)above, are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. 3) This case shall proceed solely on those federal claims identified in paragraph one (1)above. Any claims not set forth in paragraph one (1) above shall not be included in the case, except in the court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of court pursuant to Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 15. 4) A Prisoner Scheduling Order shall be entered directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. 5) A copy of this Case Management Order shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. 6) The defendants sha ll 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 to the issues and claims stated in this Case Management Order. (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.
