Harris v. McLean County, Illinois et al
| Rakeem Harris |
| McLean County, Illinois, Jon Hoffman, Aaron Kauffman, Jason Hammond, Sharon Craig, Alejandro Vasquez, Kathy Flurer, Kim Smith, Tony Burns, Seth Wiseman, Tanner Stockton, Cory Willis, Kenneth Richmond and Cory Beverlin |
| 1:2025cv01458 |
| November 7, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 28, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 MEMORANDUM in Support re #21 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Defendants Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Jon Hoffman, Aaron Kauffman, McLean County, Illinois, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. (DW) |
Filing 24
TEXT ORDER GRANTING #22 Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum of Law in Excess of Page Limit. The Court's Civil Local Rules impose a limit of fifteen pages. Civil LR 7.1(B)(4). Defendants, with the exception of Sharon Craig and Kim Smith who have not yet been served, seek to file a thirty-four-page memorandum of law in support of their #21 Motion to Dismiss. In support, the moving parties highlight that the memorandum is in response to Plaintiff's eighty-five page complaint, raising 452 allegations against the fourteen Defendants. The Court finds that the requested increase is warranted considering the number and complexity of asserted claims. Thus, Defendants' #22 Motion for Leave to File a Motion in Excess of Page Limits is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to separately docket [22-1] as Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/28/2026. (DW)
|
| Filing 23 RULE 12(C) NOTICE entered re #21 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (DW) |
| Filing 22 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of Page Limit by Defendants Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Jon Hoffman, Aaron Kauffman, McLean County, Illinois, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. Responses due by 5/8/2026 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 21 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Jon Hoffman, Aaron Kauffman, McLean County, Illinois, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. Responses due by 5/8/2026 (Haas, Carrie) |
|
Filing 20
TEXT ORDER ONLY: Plaintiff objects to Judge Hanna's decision denying his #13 Motion for Entry of Default. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Upon review of the record, the Court finds that Judge Hanna's order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and is AFFIRMED. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 04/02/2026. (DW)
|
| Filing 19 AMENDED PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MARCH 4, 2026 TEXT ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 72(a) by Rakeem Harris. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Rakeem Harris)(DW) |
| Filing 18 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MARCH 4, 2026 TEXT ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 72(a) by Rakeem Harris. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Rakeem Harris)(DW) |
|
TEXT ORDER: Before the Court are two #13 #17 motions, and the resolution of both requires the Court to untangle service in this case. On February 11, 2026, Plaintiff Rakeem Harris filed a #7 "Certificate of Service" on the docket, explaining that he sent waiver packets on February 4, 2026, to the following defendants: Kenneth Richmond, Cory Willis, Tanner Stockton, Seth Wiseman, Kathy Flurer, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Beverlin, Jason Hammond, Tony Burns, and Aaron Kauffman (collectively, "Moving Defendants"). Strangely, the docket also reflects that Harris served the Moving Defendants, via a process server, with summons and a copy of the amended complaint on February 6, 2026 - two days after Harris sent them the requests to waive service. (Doc. 12.) So it appears that Harris both sent a request to waive service and served the Moving Defendants with process. The Court struggles to understand why Harris would do so, if not to game the system and attempt to quickly obtain a default judgment before the Moving Defendants can defend his suit. And indeed, that is exactly what Harris is attempting here: He filed a #13 Motion for Entry of Default two business days after the Moving Defendants' answer was due. Harris's gamesmanship is not well taken. In any case, Harris's #13 motion is DENIED because the Moving Defendants have not "failed to answer or otherwise appear," as Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) requires; to the contrary, they have appeared in the case and sought an extension of time to respond. See Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 631 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the federal rules "articulate a policy of favoring trial on the merits over default judgment"). As to the Moving Defendants' #17 Motion for Extension of Time, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A) demands good cause or, if the requested extension is untimely, excusable neglect. It is unclear which should apply here. The Moving Defendants say that they owe an answer by April 4, 2026, which is 60 days after Plaintiff sent them requests to waive service of summons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(ii). On the other hand, if they were served with process on February 6, 2026, then the normal 21-day deadline would have expired on February 27, 2026. The Court need not resolve the question, however, because the Moving Defendants would clear the higher bar: Their failure to file an answer by February 27, 2026, was excusable in light of the confusion generated by Harris's service tactics. Accordingly, the Moving Defendants' #17 Motion is GRANTED. The Moving Defendants must file an answer or other responsive motion to Plaintiff's complaint on or by April 24, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on March 4, 2026. (NL)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #4 Amended Complaint by Defendants Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Aaron Kauffman, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. Responses due by 3/17/2026 (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 16 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST pursuant to Local Rule 11.3 by Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Aaron Kauffman, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 15 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Aaron Kauffman, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Carrie L Haas on behalf of Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Aaron Kauffman, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Entry of Default by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. Responses due by 3/17/2026 (JJK) |
| Filing 12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rakeem Harris. Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Aaron Kauffman, Kenneth Richmond, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, and Seth Wiseman served on 2/6/2026, answers due 2/27/2026. (Attachments: #1 Burns Summons Returned Executed, #2 Flurer Summons Returned Executed, #3 Hammond Summons Returned Executed, #4 Kauffman Summons Returned Executed, #5 Richmond Summons Returned Executed, #6 Stockton Summons Returned Executed, #7 Vazquez Summons Returned Executed, #8 Willis Summons Returned Executed, #9 Wiseman Summons Returned Executed)(JJK) |
|
TEXT ORDER: Defendants McLean County's and Jon Hofmann's #11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's complaint is GRANTED. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), the Court may, for good cause, extend time when a request is made before the original deadline expires. The Court finds good cause for the extension. Accordingly, Defendants McLean County and Jon Hofmann must file an answer or other responsive motion on or by April 24, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L Hanna on February 25, 2026. (NL)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #4 Amended Complaint by Defendants Jon Hoffman, McLean County, Illinois. Responses due by 3/10/2026 (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 10 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST pursuant to Local Rule 11.3 by Jon Hoffman, McLean County, Illinois. (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 9 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Jon Hoffman, McLean County, Illinois. (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Carrie L Haas on behalf of Jon Hoffman, McLean County, Illinois (Haas, Carrie) |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Rakeem Harris (RES) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Waiver of Service of Summons by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. (DW) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rakeem Harris. Jon Hoffman served on 2/4/2026, answer due 2/25/2026; McLean County, Illinois served on 2/3/2026, answer due 2/24/2026. (Attachments: #1 Hoffman Returned Executed)(DW) |
| Filing 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Rakeem Harris.(DW) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Sharon Craig, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Jon Hoffman, Aaron Kauffman, McLean County, Illinois, Kenneth Richmond, Kim Smith, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman. Summons returned to Pro Se Plaintiff to Effectuate Service. (DW) Modified on 1/15/2026 to correct typographical error (SKR). |
|
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff Rakeem Harris has filed a #2 motion seeking two things. For context, and as explained in the Court's November 12, 2025 Text Order, Harris has been barred from filing IFP motions in this District. The bar was imposed by District Judge Hawley in another of Harris's cases after concluding that Harris had engaged in abuse of judicial process. See Harris v. McLean County, No. 1:24-cv-01451, Dkt. 4 (Nov. 7, 2024). In his #2 motion, Harris first asks the Court to lift the IFP bar. Harris argues that 28 U.S.C. 1915, the IFP statute, does not authorize courts to sanction non-prisoners for abusive filing practices. Not so. The Seventh Circuit has long recognized the "ample authority" possessed by district courts to "curtail abusive filing practices." Smith v. United States Cong., No. 25-1148, 2025 WL 2887021, at *2 (7th Cir. Oct. 10, 2025) (citing Support Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995)). And contrary to Harris's assertions, that authority is not confined to lawsuits initiated by those who are incarcerated. See id. at *1 (affirming a district court's filing ban as applied to a non-prisoner). To be sure, Judge Hawley indicated that Harris's IFP ban may be revisited in March 2026. See Harris, No. 1:24-cv-01451, Dkt. 4, at 7. But Harris offers no persuasive reason why the one-year duration of the ban was improper. Second, Harris asks the undersigned to recuse himself from this case. To that end, Harris argues that the undersigned has demonstrated bias by enforcing the IFP sanction. But enforcing a legitimate sanction against Harris does not satisfy the objective showing of impartiality that 28 U.S.C. 455(a) requires. To the contrary, a failure to enforce the orders of another judge in this District would amount to selective enforcement and thus undermine their legal effect. The rule of law requires more. Accordingly, Harris's #2 motion is DENIED. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on December 2, 2025. (NL)
|
| Filing 2 OBJECTION AND MOTION TO VACATE IFP BAN AND FOR JUDICIAL RECUSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. Section 455 by Plaintiff Rakeem Harris. Responses due by 12/10/2025 (JJK) |
| Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number PIA #100007888 (DW) |
|
TEXT ORDER: The docket indicates that Plaintiff Rakeem Harris filed his #1 Complaint on November 7, 2025, but did not pay the mandatory filing fee. That violated Civil Local Rule 5.4(C), which provides that "[c]ase initiating documents must be accompanied by the filing fee or a petition to proceed in forma pauperis." The latter option is not available to Mr. Harris, as was made abundantly clear to him on March 24, 2024, when this Court issued an Order in another of Mr. Harris's cases. See Harris v. McLean County, No. 1:24-cv-01451, Dkt. 4 (Nov. 7, 2024). In that Order, the Court found that Mr. Harris had engaged in "abusive filing practices" and found it appropriate to "bar [Mr. Harris] from filing any further" applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at 7. The Court issues the following caution: If Mr. Harris's #1 Complaint is found to be frivolous, duplicative, or brought for an illegitimate purpose, the Court will not hesitate to exercise its authority and impose an appropriate sanction. See Support Sys. Intl, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (confirming district courts have authority to impose sanctions to discourage abuse of federal court process, so long as the sanction is "tailored to the abuse"). Indeed, in March 2024 this Court found that barring Mr. Harris from proceeding IFP was appropriate, in part because it was his "first formal sanction." See Harris, No. 1:24-cv-01451, Dkt. 4, at 7. But if the Court finds that Mr. Harris's most recent #1 complaint constitutes abuse of judicial process, the Court will not hesitate to impose additional sanctions commensurate with that abuse. Accordingly, Mr. Harris must pay the filing fee on or before November 17, 2025. If not, his case will be dismissed. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on 11/12/2025. (NL)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Cory Beverlin, Tony Burns, Sharon Craig, Kathy Flurer, Jason Hammond, Jon Hoffman, Aaron Kauffman, McLean County, Illinois, Kenneth Richmond, Kim Smith, Tanner Stockton, Alejandro Vasquez, Cory Willis, Seth Wiseman, filed by Rakeem Harris.(DW) |
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.
