Nicholson vs Walker, et al
| Harry Nicholson |
| Roger E Walker, Jr, Brian Fairchild, Gerardo Acevedo, Michele Pulley, Durham, Tammy Bennett, Evelyn V Johnson, Gary Pompel, Robert Schisier, Gerald Buscher, David Rayborn, . Price, Michael Puisis, . Knott, . Chapin, . Sanders, . Shea, Unnamed Jane/John Doe and Stephen B Wright |
| 1:2009cv01145 |
| April 24, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Logan |
| 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
6
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 6/8/09: 1) The clerk of the court is directed to strike the attachments to the plaintiff's complaint. (Pages 19 - 124) 2) 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 claims: a)Defendants Durham, Acevedo, Pulley and Wright failed to protect the plaintifffrom an inmate attack in violation of the 8th Amendment. b) Defendant Puisis was deliberately indiffere nt to the plaintiff's serious medical condition in violation of the 8th amendment. The claims are against the defendants in their individual capacities. 3)All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph (1) above, are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Therefore, the clerk of the court is directed to dismiss Defendants Walker, Fairchild, Price, Chapin, Bennett, Johnson, Pompel, Schisier, Buscher, Rayborn, Knott, Sanders , Shea and the Jane and John Doe defendants. 4)This case shall 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 dis cretion on motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.5) A Prisoner Scheduling Order shall be entered directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference date. 6) A copy of this Case Man agement Order shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. 7) The plaintiff's motions within his complaint for a preliminary injunction is denied. 8) The defendants shall file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A mo tion 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.
