Dabbs v. Peoria County Illinois et al
| Gregory Dabbs |
| Peoria County Illinois, Scott Sorrell and Michael A Brooks |
| 1:2016cv01463 |
| November 29, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Peoria |
| Jonathan E. Hawley |
| Joe Billy McDade |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 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
5
ORDER & OPINION entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/20/2016. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 3 ) is DENIED. Plainti ff's duplicative motion (Doc. 2 ) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his right to a speedy trial. Because this claim could not be cured of its defects, it is DISMISSED WITH P REJUDICE. For all other claims, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because Plaintiff could cure these defects, these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days to file an Amended Complaint that relates to these claims and that complies with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If he fails to do so, the case will be dismissed in its entirety. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (JS, 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.
