Cisco v. Killian et al
| Christopher Cisco |
| Andrew Killian and Matthew Fitton |
| 2:2024cv02094 |
| April 29, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colleen R Lawless |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 USCA ORDER entered 6/10/2024. IT IS ORDERED that the PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT file 5/15/2024 and MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed 5/15/2024 are DENIED. An appeal is the appropriate mechanism to challenge any final order. Cisco is also reminded that a litigant with three strikes must prepay any necessary fees for an appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). See written Order.(BMG) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Reconsideration re Text Order dated 5/16/2024 by Plaintiff Christopher Cisco. Responses due by 6/6/2024 (JMB) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal as to Christopher Cisco. (JMB) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colleen R. Lawless on 5/16/2024. On May 8, 2024, the Court dismissed Christopher Cisco's attempt to file a criminal complaint and entered Judgment #4 . The Court informed Cisco that (1) a Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis must include the issues the Plaintiff will present in his appeal to assist the Court in deciding whether the appeal is taken in good faith, (2) if he desired to file an appeal, he must file a Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the entry of Judgment, and (3) if Plaintiff chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. Instead, Cisco mailed a handwritten criminal complaint to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and a partial document regarding abortions that the Seventh Circuit has returned to this Court and this Court has filed #5 . The Court STRIKES Plaintiff's filing #5 as the intent is to file a criminal complaint. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Cisco the Standard Notice of Appeal and Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal forms. The Court reminds Cisco of the mentioned time constraints to file a Notice of Appeal. (SAG)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by Plaintiff Christopher Cisco. Responses due by 5/29/2024 (SAG) |
| Filing 4 JUDGMENT entered. (KE) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colleen R. Lawless on 5/8/2024. Plaintiff Christopher Cisco, a Paxton, Illinois resident, moves for the filing of a federal criminal complaint #1 . Plaintiff names a state judge from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, the Paxton County State's Attorney, and unnamed co-conspirators as Defendants. Plaintiff also filed a Motion #3 , clarifying that he did not intend his filing #1 to be construed as a civil complaint. Given Plaintiff's clarification, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's filing #1 with prejudice as Plaintiff has no standing to initiate criminal charges. See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986) (holding that "'a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another'") (quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)); see also Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 754 (1984) ("This Court has repeatedly held that an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court."). The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues the Plaintiff will present in his appeal to assist the Court in deciding whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999) (an appellant should be allowed to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith."); Walker v O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000) (providing that a good-faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could supposehas some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. (KE)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Change Venue by Plaintiff Christopher Cisco. Responses due by 5/20/2024. (BMG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colleen R. Lawless on 4/30/2024. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint but has not paid the $405 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff must pay the $405 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 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Colleen Lawless. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Springfield Division, 600 E Monroe, Springfield,IL 62701.Merit Review Deadline set for 5/20/2024. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Christopher Cisco.(KE) |
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.
