Wilson v. Acevedo et al
| Lorenzo Wilson |
| Geraldo Acevedo, Stephen Wright, James Rundle, . Shaw, D . Price, Mark H Locke and Lyle Hawkinson |
| 1:2010cv01148 |
| May 18, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Harold A. Baker |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
19
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER re 14 Amended Complaint filed by Lorenzo Wilson entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 10/8/10. IT IS ORDERED: (1) Pursuant to its merit review of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff st ates the following federal claims: (a) Defendant Rundle violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when he refused to provide a nutritionally adequate meal to the plaintiff resulting in various health problems for the plaintiff; and, (b) D efendants Price and Shaw violated the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights when they refuse to allow the plaintiff time to eat meals. (2) All other claims based on federal law, other than those set forth in paragraph one above, are dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. The clerk of the court is directed to dismiss the remaining defendants, Acevedo, Wright, Price, Locke and Hawkinson, since they are no longer included in the allegations. (3) This case sh all 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 le ave 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 Sched uling 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. 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.
