Broadfield v. Tazewell County Jail et al
| Brian D Broadfield |
| Tazewell County Jail, Robert Houston, Earl Helm, . Shaw, Joe Sadowski and Rhonda Spracklen |
| 1:2009cv01143 |
| April 22, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Tazewell |
| Harold A. Baker |
| John A. Gorman |
| Plaintiff |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
32
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/26/09: 1) The plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel are denied. [d/e 10, 20, 27] 2) The plaintiff's motions for leave to amend his complaint are denied. [d/e 13, 26] 3) Defendant Shaw&# 039;s motion to compel is granted. [d/e 30]. The plaintiff must provide responses to the defendant's relevant discovery requests within 30 days. If the plaintiff fails to participate in the discovery process, his lawsuit may be dismissed. 4) Defendant Shaw is to send the plaintiff another copy of the Authorization for the Release of Medical Records form. The plaintiff must immediate sign and return the form to the defendant. (cc: plaintiff) (MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 6/8/09: 1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states the following federal claim: Defendants Houston, Helm and Shaw were deliberate ly indifferent to the plaintiffs serious medical condition when they refused to allow him to see a dentist. 2) All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph (1) above, are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursua nt to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The clerk of the court is directed to dismiss Defendants Tazewell County Jail, Joe Sadowski and Rhonda Spracklen for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against these individuals. 3) This case sha ll proceed solely on those federal claims identified in paragraph one above. Any claims not set forth in paragraph one 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 lea ve of court pursuant to Federal Rule 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 Schedu ling Order. 6) The defendants 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 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.
