Burnside v. Kientzle et al
| Brian A Burnside |
| Brandon Kientzle, Jeffrey Hinshaw, Terry Muench, Katherine Gorman, Kevin W Lyons, Kimberly Nelson, Will Smith, Brian Asbell, DCS Hart, C Hofmann, Alexander Eddlemon and . Hart |
| 1:2022cv01126 |
| April 13, 2022 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Joe Billy McDade |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Enter Evidence List of Exhibits by Plaintiff Brian A Burnside. Responses due by 5/20/2022 (AEM) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/28/2022. Plaintiff filed a complaint and #4 petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after having been released from custody. Plaintiff alleges a violation of his constitutional rights at the Peoria County Jail. As Plaintiff was not in custody at the time he filed his complaint, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act does not apply and his IFP request is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. 1915 which is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The court must deny an IFP request, however, if : (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Hutchinson v Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the applicability of 1915 to cases brought by non-prisoners). Plaintiff asserts that he and his spouse are unemployed and that their only income is a monthly allotment of food stamps. Their only asset is a vehicle, and they owe for rent and utilities. #4 is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be responsible for any portion of the filing fee. Shepherd v. Shah, No. 16- 00333, 2016 WL 1730622, at *5 (S.D. Ill. May 2, 2016) (citing Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997) ("fee requirement of 1915(a)(1) and (b) applies only to prisoners; non-prisoners granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis are not responsible for paying a filing fee at all (See 1915(d))". However, "[i]f judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs under 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, notwithstanding that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted." Shepherd, 2016 WL 1730622, at *6 (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(f)(2)(A)). (SAG)
|
| Filing 4 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Brian A Burnside.(SAG) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Michael Mihm. 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 5/9/2022. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(SAG) |
TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Michael M. Mihm for all further proceedings due to the nature of the case. Judge Joe Billy McDade no longer assigned to case. Entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on 4/18/2022. (SAG)
|
| Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley no longer assigned to case. (SAG) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/18/2022. Plaintiff has filed a Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis #2 that is insufficient as it is lacking information and is, therefore, denied. Plaintiff is directed to file a petition to proceed in forma pauperis setting forth his income, assets, and expenses on or before 5/2/2022. If Plaintiff fails to either pay the $402 filing fee or renew his IFP petition on or before 5/2/2022, his case will be dismissed. The Clerk is to provide Plaintiff with a long form IFP to assist him.(SAG)
|
| Filing 2 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Brian A Burnside.(AEM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Brian A Burnside.(AEM) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/28/2022. Plaintiff filed a complaint and #4 petition to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after having been released from custody. Plaintiff alleges a violation of his constitutional rights at the Peoria County Jail. As Plaintiff was not in custody at the time he filed his complaint, the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act does not apply and his IFP request is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. 1915 which is designed to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to the federal courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). The court must deny an IFP request, however, if : (1) the allegation of poverty is untrue; (2) the action is frivolous; (3) the action fails to state a claim; or (4) the action seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Hutchinson v Spink, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997) (recognizing the applicability of 1915 to cases brought by non-prisoners). Plaintiff asserts that he and his spouse are unemployed and that their only income is a monthly allotment of food stamps. Their only asset is a vehicle, and they owe for rent and utilities. #4 is GRANTED. Plaintiff will not be responsible for any portion of the filing fee. Shepherd v. Shah, No. 16- 00333, 2016 WL 1730622, at *5 (S.D. Ill. May 2, 2016) (citing Haynes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997) ("fee requirement of 1915(a)(1) and (b) applies only to prisoners; non-prisoners granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis are not responsible for paying a filing fee at all (See 1915(d))". However, "[i]f judgment is rendered against Plaintiff, and the judgment includes the payment of costs under 1915, Plaintiff will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, notwithstanding that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted." Shepherd, 2016 WL 1730622, at *6 (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(f)(2)(A)). (SAG)