Smith v. Adams et al
| Ryan Smith |
| Suzanne Adams, Arlene Bluth, Rowan Wilson, Vanessa Fang, Everett Hopkins, Hector Lasalle, Stuart Slotnick, Wavny Toussaint, Dianne T. Renwick, Kevin McClanahan, Julia Hernandez, Joy Campanelli, Tanya Faye, Joseph W Belluck, Michael Rosenthal, Jamaal T Bailey, Genine Edwards, Carmen Pacheco, Michael Gianaris, Jack M Martins and Brian Gotlieb |
| 1:2026cv01348 |
| August 12, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Ronald L Hanna |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 13, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 JUDGMENT entered. (DW) |
Filing 3
ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 8/13/2026. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs Complaint (D. #1 ) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim and as malicious. The Application to proceed IFP (D. #2 ) is DENIED. The Court will not permit the Plaintiff, who is pursuing a malicious action, to do so without paying the filing fee. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. See full Written Order(DW)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Ryan Smith. Responses due by 8/26/2026 (DW) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Ryan Smith.(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.