Stanbridge v. Mitchell et al
| Kevin W Stanbridge |
| Jacqueline Mitchell, Larry Phillips, Carol Vance, Michael Bednarz and Any and all other unnamed and/or unknown persons discovered through the course of discovery to have participated in the violations complained of herein |
| 3:2010cv03008 |
| January 13, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Schuyler |
| Harold A. Baker |
| Charles H. Evans |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
82
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1. Plaintiff's motion in limine regarding prior convictions is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 68 ). The motion is granted with respect to the prior convictions of his witnesses, Terry Hyatt and Richard S mego. The motion is granted in part with respect to Plaintiff's prior conviction. The Court will inform the jury as part of the statement of the case that Plaintiff was convicted of a felony, has served his sentence for that felony, and is now being detained in a mental health treatment and detention facility operated by the Department of Human Services. 2) Defendant's request to read the facts conceded for purposes of summary judgment is denied.3) Plaintiff's request to strike 19 of his Complaint is denied (d/e 80 ).4) Plaintiff filed his response to Defendant's request to read admissions as a motion, rather than as a response (d/e 81 ). Motion # 81 is denied because it is not a motion. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 05/21/2012. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
48
Opinion (See Written Opinion): 1) Defendant Dr. Mitchell's motion for summary judgment is denied (d/e 42). 2) A final pretrial conference is scheduled for Monday, January 23, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., by telephone conference. The parties are directe d to submit an agreed, proposed final pretrial order at least fourteen days before the final pretrial conference. Defendant bears the responsibility of preparing the proposed final pretrial order and mailing the proposed order to Plaintiff to allow Plaintiff sufficient time to review the order before the final pretrial conference. See CD-IL Local Rule 16.3. 2) The clerk is directed to issue a telephone writ to secure the plaintiff's appearance at the final pretrial conference. 3) The pro posed final pretrial order must include the names of all witnesses to be called at the trial and must indicate whether the witness will appear in person or by video conference. Nonparty witnesses who are detained at the Rushville Treatment and Deten tion Center will testify by video. Other nonparty witnesses may appear by video at the Court's discretion. The proposed pretrial order must also include the names and addresses of any witnesses for whom trial subpoenas are sought. The parties are responsible for timely obtaining and serving any necessary subpoenas, as well as providing the necessary witness and mileage fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. 4) Jury selection and the jury trial are scheduled for Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at 9:00 a. m., by personal appearance of the parties before this Court in Springfield, Illinois. 5) After the final pretrial order is entered, the Clerk is directed to issue the appropriate process to secure the personal appearance of Plaintiff at the trial and the video appearances of the video witnesses at the trial. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/07/2011. (VM, ilcd)
|
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.
