Rasho v. Randle et al
| Ashoor Rasho |
| Michael P. Randle, Sarah . Johnson, Guy D Pierce, Joseph V Mathy, Marcus Hardy, Sylvia Mahone, Easter Martin, Richard Cation, John Birkle, P Hastings and S Simpson |
| 1:2010cv01108 |
| April 21, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Harold A. Baker |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
66
ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 9/15/11. IT IS ORDERED that: 1) The Defendant Mahone's motion for an order pursuant to 45 CFR 164.512 ofthe Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) for the release of medical records is granted. 65 . 2) The Plaintiff's medical records shall be released to the attorneys of record inthis litigation upon request of said attorney(s) to any covered entity, as defined by 45 C.F.R. 160.103. Those attorneys include Lisa Cook, Jer rod Williams and Theresa Powell. This order applies to all of the Plaintiff's protected health information produced by a covered entity as defined under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and attendant federal regulations. The parties and their attorneys shall not use or disclose the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation in this case. Upon the termination of this litigation, the parties and their attorneys shall either return said protected health information to the covered entity or destroy the protected health information. SEE FULL ORDER. (FDT, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
13
MERIT REVIEW AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/18/10. IT IS ORDERED: (1) The plaintiff's 7 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to file the attached Amended Complaint an d add the one new John Doe defendant: Director Randle's Designee (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 claim: the defendants were delibera tely indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical conditions. The claim is stated against the defendants in their individual capacities only. (3) All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph two above, are d ismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. (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 cas e, except in the court's discretion 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 16conferenc e date. (6) A copy of this Case Management Order shall be served with the Complaint and Scheduling Order. (7) 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 con sidered a responsive pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and should include all defenses appropriate under theFederal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Case Management Order. (8) The plaintiff's 3 Motion for Appointment of Counsel is denied. (9) The plaintiff's 8 9 Requests to Submit Documents are denied. (10) The court notes that the plaintiff has not given the name for one defendant: Randle's desi gnee. The plaintiff must identify the name and work address of this individual in orderto effect service on him. The Marshals cannot serve unidentified defendants. If the plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, he must discover it by filing a discovery request upon the known defendants after they have appeared, or, if those defendants do not provide an answer, a motion to compel with the court. Failure to timely identify and serve this defendant will result in his dismissal from the case. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). SEE FULL ORDER. cc: plaintiff. (FDT, 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.
