Jarvis v. Illinois River Correctional Center et al
| DeLaney Jarvis |
| Illinois River Correctional Center, Justin Hammers, Brad Johnson, Burner, M. Stein, Thousand, Lonn Howarter, Matthew Curtis, Stufflebean, Bailey, S. Harrison, A. Brooks and Robbie Johnson |
| 1:2018cv01059 |
| February 12, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Fulton |
| 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
7
MERIT REVIEW OPINION Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 4/9/2018. See written Order. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for conditions of c onfinement against Defendants Bailey and Curtis. This case is now 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 d irected to terminate Illinois River Correctional Center, Justin Hammers, Brad Johnson, Burner, M. Stein, Thousand, Lonn Howarter, Stufflebean, S. Harrison, A. Brooks and Robbie Johnson as defendants. The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants Matthew Curtis and Bailey pursuant to the standard procedures. Plaintiffs motion for counsel 5 is denied, with leave to renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel.(ED, 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.
