Lisle v. Dillion et al
| Steven D Lisle, Jr. |
| Dillion, Swittzer, Michael Melvin, T Kennedy, Emily Ruskin, John and Jane Does, Shelia Molinero, Tod Nelson, Benner, Becky, John R Baldwin, Sarah Johnson and Patricia Thull |
| 1:2018cv01103 |
| March 12, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Peoria Office |
| Livingston |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Tom Schanzle-Haskins |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 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
9
MERIT REVIEW OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/1/2018. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that the Plaintiff states plausible constitutional claims and a supplemental state law c laim. This case is now in the process of service. Plaintiff's motion for the Court to appoint counsel is denied, d/e 5 with leave to renew after Plaintiff demonstrates that he has made reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F. 3d 647, 654-55 (7th Circ. 2007). Plaintiff's motion for status is moot, d/e 8 . Defendants Kennedy; Ruskin; John and Jane Does Internal Affairs; John and Jane Does Pontiac Officials; Molinero; Tod Nelson; Benner and John and Jane Does ARB. HIPAA Order to enter. (SEE WRITTEN MERIT REVIEW OPINION) Rule 16 Deadline 7/31/2018 (MAS, 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.
