Wallace v. Rojas et al
| David Wallace |
| Manuel Rojas, S S Nott, Richard Gerald, Cheryl Hinthorne, Gerardo Acevedo, Roger E Walker and Michael Randle |
| 1:2009cv01286 |
| August 19, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Knox |
| 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
39
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 11/2/10: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1) The Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's August 2, 2010 Merit Review Order is granted. [d/e 34] The clerk of the court is directed to add Defendant Dietary Manager James Rundle as to claim #2; Dietary Manager James Rundle added. The clerk is also directed to send Notice of Lawsuit and Waiver of Service Forms to this defendant. This case is set for hearing on the status of Defendant Rundle on December 10, 2010 at 9:45 a.m. by telephone conference call. The clerk is to issue a writ for the plaintiff's participation in the conference call. 2)The plaintiff's surviving claims are as follows: a) Defendants Major S.S. Nott, Food Supe rvisor Richard Gerald, Food SupervisorCheryl Hinthorne, Chaplin Manuel Rojas, Warden Gerardo Acevedo and Illinois Department of Corrections Director Roger E. Walker violated the Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the First Amendment and RLUIPA when the plaintiff was punished for refusing to work on a holy day in violation of his religious beliefs. b) Defendants Walker, Acevedo, Rojas and Dietary Manager Jame Rundle violated the Plaintiff's rights pursuant to the First Amendment and RLUIPA when they refused to allow the Plaintiff a kosher diet or to participate in the Feast of Unleavened Bread in accordance with his religious beliefs. 3) The Plaintiff's motion for a subpoena request is denied [d/e 36]. 4) The Defendants motion to withdraw admissions is granted. [d/e 38] 5) If the Defendants believe the Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for the claims in his complaint, they must file a well documented motion for summary judgement on this issue within 30 days of this order. 6) The court will abide by the previously set scheduling deadlines. See August 2, 2010 CaseManagement Order. (cc: plaintiff)(MSB, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 8/2/10: 1) The plaintiff's initial, piecemeal motions to amend his complaint are denied. [d/e 5, 7, 9]2) The plaintiff's final motion to amend his complaint is granted. [d/e 10] The plaintiff hasthe following claims before this court:a) Defendants Walker, Acevedo, Nott, Hinthorne, Gerard and Walker violated theplaintiff's rights pursuant to the First Amendment and RLUIPA when the plaintiffwas punished for refusing to work on a holy day in violation of his religious beliefs.b) Defendants Walker, Acevedo, and Rojas violated the plaintiff's rights pursuant tothe First Amendment and RLUIPA when they refused to allow the plaintiff a kosherdiet or to participate in the Feast of Unleave ned Bread in accordance with hisreligious beliefs.3) All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph oneabove, are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Theclerk of the court is dir ected to dismiss Defendants Director Michael Randle or IllinoisDepartment of Corrections Dietary Manager James Rundle for failure to state a claim uponwhich relief can be granted. The plaintiff's second motion to add Defendant Rundle is alsodeni ed. [d/e 28]4) This case shall proceed solely on those federal claims identified in paragraph two above.Any claims not set forth in paragraph two 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 courtpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. 5) The plaintiff's motion asking to stay service of his complaint is denied. [d/e 6] 6) The plaintiff's motion for a court order directing the Trust Fund Office to pay his initial partial filing fee is denied as moot. [d/e 8] 7) The plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied.[d/e 12] 8) Defendants Rojas, Nott, Gerard, Walker and Acevedo have returned waiver of service forms and must file an answer to the complaint 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 sho uld 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. 9) The court will abide by the following scheduling deadlines: 1) all discovery must be completed on or before January 31, 2011; and 2) any dispositive motions must be filed on or before February 28, 2011. (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.
