Muhammad v. Home Box Office Inc.
| Warith R Muhammad |
| Home Box Office Inc., Paul Rivera and Lebron James |
| 1:2021cv01180 |
| June 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Joe Billy McDade |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE as to #17 Notice of Appeal filed by Warith R Muhammad (FDS) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Docketing Short Record on Appeal from USCA re #17 Notice of Appeal filed by Warith R Muhammad. USCA Case Number 22-1110. (FDS) |
| Filing 18 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re #17 Notice of Appeal (FDS) |
| Filing 17 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #15 Order by Warith R Muhammad. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(FDS) |
| Filing 16 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE. (FDS) |
Filing 15
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/21/21. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintif's Complaint is DISMISSED. This matter is TERMINATED. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDS)
|
| Filing 14 Response by Warith R Muhammad re #13 12/6/21 Order. (FDS) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 12/6/21. Defendant HBO's Motions to Dismiss (docs. #6 and #9 ) are GRANTED and Plaintiff's claim against Defendant HBO is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Defendant HBO's Motion for Leave to File (doc. #12 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Furthermore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within fourteen (14) days explaining why his claim against Defendants Rivera and James should not be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 4. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDS)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Home Box Office Inc.. Responses due by 12/20/2021 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Defendant Home Box Office, Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss)(Craven, Donald) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE to Motion/Reconsideration re #9 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Warith R Muhammad. (JS) |
| Filing 10 RULE 12(C) NOTICE entered re #9 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss . (JS) |
| Filing 9 Supplemental MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant Home Box Office Inc.. Responses due by 11/24/2021 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Craven, Donald) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/27/2021. Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss asks the Court to dismiss this case as duplicative of case No. 21-1168. As the complaint in that case was dismissed for failure to state a claim, preclusion becomes a question, given Defendant's position. Defendant is therefore directed to file a memorandum within fourteen (14) days discussing whether this matter is precluded and/or otherwise expounding on its request for dismissal. Plaintiff may respond within fourteen (14) days of Defendant's filing. The respective memoranda shall not exceed 10 pages in length. (EWL)
|
| Filing 8 RESPONSE to Motion to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff Warith R Muhammad. (AEM) |
| Filing 7 RULE 12(C) NOTICE entered re #6 MOTION to Dismiss. (FDS) |
| Filing 6 Motion to Dismiss (Craven, Donald) Modified on 10/5/2021 to change the event type to Motion. (VH). |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/5/2021. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Notice seeking consolidation of this case with another case from this District (No. 21-1168). Given that Case No. 21-1168 is closed, consolidation pursuant to Local Rule 42.1 is inappropriate. The Court thus construes the Notice as a motion to dismiss invoking the same reasons and arguments for dismissal asserted in documents 6, 7, and 12 in Case No. 21-1168. Plaintiff may file a Response within 14 days addressing the arguments asserted in those documents as well as document #6 in this Case. (EWL)
|
|
TEXT ORDER striking #4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and #5 Rule 12(C) Notice entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 8/24/2021. Defendant's counsel reported to the Clerk that the instant Motion to Dismiss was filed in error. It is therefore STRICKEN from the record as is the attendant Rule 12(C) Notice issued by the Clerk. Plaintiff is advised to disregard both documents. (EWL)
|
| Filing 5 STRICKEN/VACATED PURSUANT TO THE 8/24/21 TEXT ORDER: RULE 12(C) NOTICE entered re #4 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (FDS) Modified on 8/25/2021 (FDS). |
| Filing 4 STRICKEN/VACATED PURSUANT TO THE 8/24/21 TEXT ORDER: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Home Box Office Inc.. Responses due by 9/7/2021 (Craven, Donald) Modified on 8/25/2021 (FDS). |
|
TEXT ORDER denying #2 Motion to Request Counsel entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 6/28/2021. "Civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to counsel in federal court." Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1006 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). However, the Court may, in its discretion, request an attorney to represent an indigent litigant. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Before the Court will recruit counsel, the litigant must first show he made a reasonable attempt to acquire counsel without court intervention. Pennewell v. Par., 923 F.3d 486, 490 (7th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff's form motion is incomplete. Not only does it fail to indicate whether he is indigent, but it also fails to indicate whether he has contacted any attorneys and/or organizations seeking representation in this case despite being so instructed by the form. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Request Counsel is denied at this time. (EWL)
|
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Home Box Office Inc. (JS) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Warith R Muhammad. Responses due by 7/9/2021 (JS) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Home Box Office Inc. (Filing fee $402 Receipt# 14626040992), filed by Warith R Muhammad.(JS) |
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.
