Sutton v. Speer et al
| Randall Trevet Sutton and Sarah Sutton |
| . Speer and . May |
| 1:2023cv01185 |
| May 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Mail Returned as Undeliverable/Not in Custody, re Text Order sent to Randall Trevet Sutton at Livingston County Jail. (DS) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/15/2023. On May 22, 2023, the Court received mail that it had sent to Plaintiff returned as being undeliverable. Accordingly, the Court gave Plaintiff fourteen (14) days to provide his current address to the Court, and the Court warned that, if he did not do so, the Court would dismiss this case. As of today, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order or otherwise provided his current address to the Court. Local Rule 16.3(K) requires every pro se plaintiff to inform the Court of any change of address that occurs during the pendency of his case. Failure to comply with this Local Rule results in the dismissal of the case. Id. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's May 22, 2023, Order and with the Court's Local Rules, in that, he has not kept the Court informed, in writing, of his current address. In addition, Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee or moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As a result, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with Local Rule 16.3(K) and with the Court's Order and for his failure to pay the required filing fee. No judgment to enter. (SAG)
|
| Filing 4 Mail Returned as Undeliverable, re 5/22/23 Text Order Mail sent to Randall Trevet Sutton. (DS) Modified on 5/31/23 to add date of Text Order (TC). |
|
Filing 3
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 5/22/2023. Court docket entry #2 sent to plaintiff Randall Trevet Sutton has been returned as undeliverable. Within 14 days of the entry of this order, plaintiff is directed to show good cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to keep the Court informed of plaintiff's address. Failure to show good cause will result in dismissal of this case.(DS)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Colin Stirling Bruce. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Urbana Division, 201 S Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61802.Merit Review Deadline set for 5/31/2023. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 5/11/2023. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint but has not paid the $402 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff must pay the $402 filing fee in full or file a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with attached trust fund ledgers for the last 6 months. Failure to comply without good cause will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice, and the Plaintiff will still be responsible for payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1914. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the forms for proceeding in forma pauperis. (KE)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Randall Trevet Sutton.(KE) |
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.
