Kyles v. Mathy et al
| Timothy Kyles |
| Joseph V Mathy, Marcus Hardy, Eldon Kennell, Richard Runyon, Chris Baugham, Suzann Griswold and Sylvia Mahone |
| 1:2009cv01084 |
| March 10, 2009 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| Adams |
| 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
136
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/6/2011. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff pursuant to FRCP 56. The case is terminated. Parties are to bear their own costs. See written Order attached. (cc: Pro Se Plf and Trust Fund Dept. and Finance) (RK, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/2/10: 1) The plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint is granted in part and denied in part. [d/e 50] The court will not certify this lawsuit as a class action. However, the plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with an official capacity claim against Defendants Roger Walker and Michael Randle. The clerk of the court is directed to add Defendants Roger Walker and Michael Randle to this lawsuit. 2) The plaintiff has the following surviving claims :a) Defendants Warden Joseph Mathy, Assistant Warden Marcus Hardy, Chaplain Eldon Kennell, Food Service Manager Richard Runyon, IDOC directors Roger Walker and Michael Randle violated the plaintiff's First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion when he was denied his approved religious diet; b) Defendants Mathy, Hardy, Kennell, Runyon, Walker and Randle violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act when the plaintiff was denied an approved religious diet; c ) Defendants Mathy, Hardy, Kennell and Runyon violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when the plaintiff was not provided a nutritionally adequate diet for approximately 39 days which resulted in health problems and weight loss; and, d) Defendant Medical Director Dr. Sylvia Mahone violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when she was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical condition. 3) The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Notice of Lawsu it and Waiver of Service forms to the two new defendants: Walker and Randle. A copy of this Case Management Order shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to set this case for a Rule 16 confere nce date. 4) Defendants Walker and Randle shall 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 shoul d 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. 5) The plaintiff's motion to compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part. [d/e 54] Defendant Mahone must provide a response to request #11 within 21 days of this order. 6) The clerk of the court is directed to strike document #62. This is not a motion, but instead the plaintiff has filed his discovery requests wi th the court. The plaintiff must send his discovery requests to defense counsel. 7) The plaintiff's motion asking the court to provide him with four subpoena's is denied. [d/e69] 8) Defendants Hardy, Kennell, Mathy, and Runyon motions for additional time to respond to outstanding discovery are granted. [d/e 53, 63] To the extent that the defendants have not provided responses, they must provide a response to the plaintiff within 14 days of this order. 9) Defendant Griswold's moti on for additional time to respond to discovery is denied as moot.[d/e 64] Defendant Griswold has been dismissed for this case. 10) Defendant Mahone's motion to extend the scheduling deadlines in this case is also granted.[d/e 83] The court will abide by the following deadlines: 1) all discovery must be completed on or before January 10, 2011; and 2) any dispositive motions must be filed on or before February 7, 2011. (cc: plaintiff)(MSB, ilcd)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
