Lisle et al v. Melvin et al
| Steven D Lisle, Jr, Cortez Richardson, Kenneth Powell, Dionte D. Burton and Denzel O. Walker |
| Michael Melvin, T. Kennedy, Emelly, Huston, Mister, Kelly Hagg, . McBride, . Henderson, Allen, Jatokey, Crossdayle, . Murray, John Doe, Jane Doe and John Howard Association |
| 1:2017cv01336 |
| July 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Sara Darrow |
| 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
48
MERIT REVIEW ORDER - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 3/21/2018. See written Order. Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint 46 is granted. Clerk is directed to docket the amended complaint attached to plaintiff's motion. This case is n ow in the process of service. 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 terminate Defendants Kennedy, Emelly, Huston, Mister, Hagg, McBride, Henderson, Allen, Jatokey, Crossdayle, Murray, Jane Doe, and John Howard Association. The clerk is directed to attempt service on the remaining defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiff's motion 42 is denied. Plaintiff Kenneth Powell's Motion 39 and Plaintiff's Motion to Resubmit Complaint 40 are denied as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification and Notification 45 is denied. Plaintiff's motion 47 is denied.(LN, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
41
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 1/8/2018. Plaintiffs' complaint is hereby dismissed with leave to replead. Plaintiff Lisle may file an amended complaint in this case within thirty (30) days that complies with the Cour t's instructions above. The clerk is directed to open a new case for each plaintiff naming the same defendants. Each plaintiff in their newly-severed case is granted leave to file an amended complaint within (30) days identifying their claims against specific defendants. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of his newly-severed case. The clerk is also directed to: a) File the complaint, respective motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and accompanying text order granting IFP in each newly-severed case; b) File this merit review order in each newly-severed case; and c) Send the standard Notice of Case Opening for each newly-severed case to the respective plaintiff with a copy of this Order and a blank comp laint form to assist him. Plaintiffs' motions for status and clarification 7 26 27 28 are denied as moot. Plaintiffs' also filed several motions seeking injunctive relief 8 23 29 30 32 34 35 38 . To prevail, "the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a lack of an adequate remedy at law; and (3) an irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted." Foodcomm Int'l v Barry, 328 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 2003 ) (citations omitted). In his motions, plaintiff generally complains about recent events. All prisoners are required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Based on copies of grievances Plaintiff attached to his motions, it appea rs that process is available to plaintiff and his remedy at this point lies in the grievance process. Plaintiffs' motions 8 23 29 30 32 34 35 38 are denied. Plaintiff Buie's motion 31 is granted to the extent that it seeks a sta tus and denied as to any other relief requested. Plaintiff Buie was dismissed from this lawsuit on August 11, 2017. Plaintiff Lisle's motion to resubmit complaint 37 is denied as premature as it was filed before entry of this Order. Plaintiff Lisle may resubmit an amended complaint in accordance with this Order. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint 15 is denied for the reasons stated above as it attempts to pursue this case as a class action. (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.
