Crawford v. Kenedy et al
| Antonio D Crawford |
| Teri Kenedy, John Doe and John Baldwin |
| 1:2020cv01331 |
| September 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| James E Shadid |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 5, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 11/5/2020. The Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) #7 . However, as the Court has previously noted, Plaintiff has also accumulated three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). See September 22, 2020, Text Order. The Court also notes Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a good faith basis for his appeal. See Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff originally filed his complaint focusing on the living conditions at Pontiac Correctional Center without payment of the filing fee or filing an IFP motion. Since Plaintiff was incarcerated at a different facility when he filed his complaint, he could not demonstrate he was in imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint and therefore could not proceed IFP. Plaintiff was given time to pay the fee and when he missed the deadline, his case was dismissed. See October 16, 2020, Text Order. Plaintiff does not point to specific errors in the record and instead continues to argue he is in imminent danger. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP #7 and certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 1915(a)(3), that the appeal is not in good faith. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). The clerk is directed to submit a copy of this order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Court notes due to Plaintiff's three strikes status, the Seventh Circuit has directed Plaintiff to pay the full $505 filing fee on or before November 16, 2020 #11 . (SAG, ilcd)
|
| Filing 11 PLRA FEE ORDER as to #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Antonio D Crawford. IT IS ORDERED that the pro se appellant pay the required $505.00 fees to the clerk of the district court by no later than 11/16/2020 or this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re #6 Notice of Appeal filed by Antonio D Crawford. USCA Case Number 20-3144 (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 9 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re #6 Notice of Appeal (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 8 DOCKETING STATEMENT by Antonio D Crawford re #6 Notice of Appeal (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Appeal in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Antonio D Crawford. Responses due by 11/13/2020 (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Antonio D Crawford. (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 5 JUDGMENT entered in a civil case (SAG, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 10/16/2020. On September 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming his constitutional rights were violated at Pontiac Correctional Center based on the alleged living conditions in 2019. However, Plaintiff failed to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). In addition, Plaintiff had accumulated at least three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and therefore he could not proceed IFP unless he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See September 22, 2020 Text Order (listing strikes). The Court noted since Plaintiff was now incarcerated at a Pontiac, he could not demonstrate the harm was occurring "at the time the complaint is filed," nor had Plaintiff alleged a serious physical harm. Ciarpagini v. Saini, 352 F3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff was given until October 13, 2020, to pay the fee in full, or his case would be dismissed. See September 22, 2020, Text Order. Plaintiff has instead filed a motion to reconsider asking the Court to allow him to proceed IFP #4 . Plaintiff has never filed a motion to proceed IFP in this case, nor has he provided a copy of his Trust Fund Ledgers. More important, since Plaintiff is now incarcerated at a Federal Correctional Institution in Indiana, he cannot demonstrate the living conditions at Pontiac Correctional Center pose an imminent danger. Plaintiff's motion is denied #4 . This case is dismissed in its entirety for failure to pay the required filing fee.(SAG, ilcd)
|
| Filing 4 MEMORANDUM to Show Cause Seeking Reconsideration to Proceed IFP by Antonio D Crawford. (AEM, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 9/22/2020. Plaintiff is incarcerated at a Federal Correctional Institution in Indiana, but Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983 claiming his constitutional rights were violated at Pontiac Correctional Center #1 . Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee, nor filed a motion to proceed IFP. However, Plaintiff asks the Court to send him an IFP application because he is under "imminent danger." #3 . Plaintiff has accumulated at least three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). See Crawford v. Sessions, Case No. 18-1399; Crawford v. USA, Case No. 18-1386; Crawford v Pfister, Case No. 18-1242. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP unless he demonstrates he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. The inquiry into whether a claim fits this exception is obviously two-pronged. The Seventh Circuit has construed the first prong narrowly, holding "imminent" is "an escape hatch for genuine emergencies," where "time is pressing" and "a threat... is real and proximate." Heimermann v Litxcher, 337 F3d 781 (7th Cir. 2003) citing Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002). The harm must be occurring "at the time the complaint is filed." Ciarpagini v. Saini, 352 F3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003). The second prong requires Plaintiff to demonstrate the danger is of "serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Plaintiff has alleged he was subjected to various unconstitutional living conditions at Pontiac in June of 2019 including rodents, fleas, limited cleaning supplies, a lack of hot water, excessive noise, etc. Since Plaintiff no longer resides in Illinois, he has not demonstrated the danger is imminent. Even if Plaintiff could pass this first hurdle, his allegations fail to allege a serious physical harm. Therefore, Plaintiff would not be allowed to proceed IFP in this case and he must pay the full $400 filing fee within 21 days or on or before 10/13/2020. If Plaintiff fails to pay the full fee by the deadline, his case will be dismissed with prejudice.(SAG, ilcd)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge James Shadid. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Peoria Division, 100 NE Monroe Street, Peoria, IL 61602. Merit Review Deadline set for 10/13/2020. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 3 Letter from Antonio Crawford (SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Antonio D Crawford.(SAG, ilcd) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
