Bell v. Whicker et al
| Ja'ki Bell |
| K Eshcheleman, . Blackwell, . Maier, . Liles, . Schmeltz, . Whicker, Lee, . Corley and . Bennett |
| 1:2014cv01398 |
| October 2, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Sara Darrow |
| Jonathan E. Hawley |
| Civil Rights |
| 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
8
MERIT REVIEW OPINION AND CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 11/19/2014. Rule 16 Deadline 1/18/2015. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff has stated c laims for (1) excessive force against Officers Whicker, Schmeltz, Corley, and Blackwell, (2) failure to intervene against Officers Bennett, Lee, Liles and Maier, and deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against Medical Technician K. Eshc heleman. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the courts discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The clerk is directed to attempt service on the defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. (LN, 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.
