Smego et al v. Illinois Department of Human Services et al
| All Other Persons, Richard M Smego, Jeremy Schloss, Terry J Hyatt, Donald Hoover and Stephen Simons |
| Steve Dredge, Eugene McAdory, Sandra Simpson, Aramark Food Services Corp, Larry J Phillips, Alfreda Kibby and All Others |
| 3:2010cv03334 |
| December 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Schuyler |
| Harold A. Baker |
| Charles H. Evans |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
486
OPINION (See Written Opinion): IT IS ORDERED: 1) Aramark Food Services Corporation's second motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (d/es 471 ). The motion is granted as to the dispute over 9 C.F.R. 319.6. Sectio n 319.6 is irrelevant. This regulation does not prohibit the serving of mechanically separated chicken as the sole protein source in meals. The motion is otherwise denied. 2)The rest of the pending summary judgment motions are denied (d/e's 470 , 475 , 476 ). 3) A status conference is set by telephone conference on January 27, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in order to set dates for the final pretrial conference and jury trial. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 1/10/2014. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
449
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1.Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied (d/e 422 ). 2. The Aramark Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (d/e 420 ). The motion is granted a s to the retaliation claim against the Aramark Defendants, to the extent Plaintiffs pursue that claim (d/e 420 ). The motion is otherwise denied. 3. The IDOC Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (d/e [ 419]). The motion is granted as to Defendants Kibby and McAdory. The motion is granted as to the retaliation claim against the IDOC Defendants, to the extent Plaintiffs pursue that claim. The motion is denied as to Defendant Ashby on Plaintif fs' remaining claims. 4. The current acting director of the Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility is substituted for Defendant Ashby in his official capacity pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a). Defendant Ashby remains in his individual ca pacity. 5. The Aramark Defendants' motion to continue the trial date is granted (d/e 435 ). 6. The final pretrial conference is rescheduled to Friday, July 26, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel shall appear in person before the Court. Mr. Britti ngham and the SIU law students will not be able to appear for the final pretrial conference. Attorney Noll will appear for Plaintiffs at the final pretrial conference. 7. The jury trial is tentatively rescheduled to Tuesday, August 13, 2013, at 9 :00 a.m.. By May 20, 2013, counsel are directed to inform the Court if an August 13 trial date will work for their clients and witnesses. 8. The parties are directed to submit an agreed, proposed final pretrial order at least seven days before the final pretrial conference. The proposed 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 deta ined 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. 9. The exhibit section of the proposed final pretrial order must list by number all the exhibits a party may seek to introduce at the trial and give a short description of the exhibit. The parties must prepare their own exhibits for introduction at the trial, marking the exhibits with the same number that is on the list submitted to the Court. Exhibits that are introduced at trial will be kept in the Court record. Therefore, the party offering the exhibit is responsible for making a copy of the exhibit to keep for the party's own records. Additionally, the parties are directed to exchange copies of their marked exhibits at least ten days before the final pretrial conference. If a party intends to object to the introduction of a proposed exhibit, that party must file an explanation of the grounds for objectio n at least five business days before the final pretrial conference. Objections will be argued orally at the final pretrial conference. The parties shall bring their marked exhibits to the final pretrial conference in case an objection arises at the conference. 10. The Court will circulate proposed jury instructions, a statement of the case, and proposed voir dire questions prior to the final pretrial conference, for discussion at the final pretrial conference. Proposed additional/alter nate instructions and voir dire questions must be filed five business days before the final pretrial conference. The jury instructions, statement of the case, and voir dire questions will be finalized 11. Motions in limine are to be filed at le ast five business days before the final pretrial conference, to be argued orally at the final pretrial conference. 12. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to contact the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center to determine the name of the current director or acting director of the facility, add that person as a defendant in his or her official capacity, and show on the docket that the person is represented by Attorney Christopher Higgerson. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 5/13/2013. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
354
Opinion (See Written Opinion): 1) Plaintiffs' motion to file an amended complaint is granted (d/e 340). The amended complaint is due January 9, 2011, and must be signed by all Plaintiffs who wish to pursue this action. 2) At this point, the cas e proceeds only as to Plaintiffs Smego, Schloss, Hyatt, and Hoover. However, the rest of the named Plaintiffs will remain on the docket, pending the filing of an amended complaint. 3) Discovery remains stayed pending the filing of an amended complai nt. 4) Defendant Simpson's motion to sever is denied as moot (d/e 309), with leave to renew after an amended complaint is filed. 5) Plaintiffs' motion to supplement is denied as moot (d/e 317). 6) The motion by James Godfrey to join in Pla intiffs' motions is denied as unnecessary (d/e 338).7) The motion by Forest Biggs to direct the trust fund officer to pay the partial filing fee is denied (d/e 323). Biggs is responsible for paying that fee when funds become available. Sua spo nte, Biggs has until December 30, 2011, to pay his partial filing fee. 8) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to all Plaintiffs listed on the docket sheet. 9) The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Terry Williams, Chris Clayton, and Forrest Ashby at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Center. The Court requests that Mr. Williams or Mr. Clayton post this order in the regular library at the facility. The Court further requests that Mr. Smego be permitted to post the amended complaint in the regular library for the purpose of obtaining signatures on the amended complaint. 10) Plaintiff Smego's motion for a copy of docket numbers 294 and 295 is granted (d/e 344). The clerk is directed to send Smego a co py of documents 294 and 295. 11) Plaintiff Smego's motion for a transcript of the hearing on October 17, 2011, is denied (d/e 345). Smego does not need a transcript of that hearing to pursue this case. The Court has already summarized the imp ortant points from that hearing in this order. 12) The motion for reconsideration by Plaintiffs Allen, et al., is denied as moot (d/e 346). 13) The motion to join in the motion for reconsideration is denied as moot (d/e 348). 14) Plaintiff Beckel� 39;s motion to voluntarily dismiss himself from this case is granted (d/e 349). Plaintiff Andrew Beckel is hereby dismissed and terminated as a Plaintiff, without prejudice. 15) One other case challenging Rushville's food service has been disco vered which was not closed out and consolidated with this case: Jackie Hughes v. Phillips, et al., 11-3336. The clerk is directed to enter the standard text order of consolidation in case 11-3336. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/06/2011. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
336
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1. Plaintiff Smego is designated as Plaintiffs' spokesperson. The clerk is directed to issue a video writ to secure Plaintiff Smego's presence at the status hearing on October 17, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. 2. One of the purposes of the status hearing on October 17, 2011, will be to determine the logistics of conducting discovery, filing documents with the court, and distributing documents to Plaintiffs. This Court is inclined to adopt the procedures suggest ed by Judge Baker in his prior order regarding the posting of Mr. Smego's pleadings and discovery requests on each pod. This Court is also considering the Defendants suggestion that their pleadings and this Court's orders be posted on each pod, rather than distributed to each individual plaintiff. Also to be discussed is Defendant Simpson's motion to sever. 3. The clerk is directed to send a copy of this order and Judge Bakers 8/31/11 order to the Director of the Rushville Trea tment and Detention Center. The Court requests that the Director arrange for an employee of the Center to appear at the status hearing on October 17, 2011, to discuss the procedures for posting the documents filed in this case on each pod and the pr ocedures for distributing the mailings in this case to Plaintiffs. The employee may appear by telephone or video. The Court welcomes suggestions to make the process more efficient and manageable. 4. Plaintiff Smego's motion to enforce Judge Baker's order is denied with leave to renew (d/e 283). Plaintiff alleges that an officer Durant prevented him from discussing this case with another Plaintiff. This appears to be an isolated incident. Plaintiff Smego may file a renewed motion after the October 17th conference if he is not allowed to communicate with the other plaintiffs. 5. Plaintiff Smego's motion to substitute Forest Ashby for Defendant Kibby in her official capacity is granted (d/e 290). The clerk is directed t o add Forest Ashby as a defendant in his official capacity, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Defendant Kibby remains as a defendant in her individual capacity. 6. Plaintiff Koster's motion to extend the deadline for his payment is denied as moot (d/e 292). His payment has been received. 7. Plaintiffs William Allen, Troy Curtner, Tommy Greenfield, Harold Peppers, Donald Stinson, Harold Lee TineyBey, and Larry Johnson have objected to the designation of Plaintiff Smego as their spokespe rson. They have also filed a motion for appointment of counsel (d/e 295). The motion for counsel is denied as moot (d/e 295) because this Court is already looking for counsel in this case. These Plaintiffs will be severed from this case since they object to Plaintiff Smego's designation. However, these Plaintiffs should be aware that the Court is not going to try to recruit counsel for them in their duplicate case. 8. The claims by Plaintiffs William Allen, Troy Curtner, Tommy Greenfi eld, Harold Peppers, Donald Stinson, Harold Lee TineyBey, and Larry Johnson are severed from this case. The clerk is directed to open a new case for Plaintiffs Allen, Curtner, Greenfield, Peppers, Stinson, TineyBey and Johnson, with the same defenda nts and appearances for the defendants. 9. Plaintiff Smego's motion to dismiss Plaintiff TineyBey as not properly joined is denied as moot (d/e 298), since Plaintiff TineyBey is no longer a Plaintiff in this case. 10. The motion for an exten sion of time to pay the partial filing fee filed by Plaintiffs Erbe and Rainwater is denied (d/e 303), as the motion is not signed by them. However, the Court sua sponte grants them an extension to October 20, 2011, to make their payments. 11. The motions for sanctions (d/e 307) and to enforce Judge Baker's order (d/e's 308, 316) are denied with leave to renew after the status hearing on October 17, 2011, and after the Court enters an order finalizing the procedures to be followed i n this case.12. Plaintiff Pegues' motion for an extension to pay the partial fee is granted (d/e 311). 13. Plaintiff Casper's motion for an extension to pay the filing fee is denied as moot (d/e 312). The Court has already received Caspe r's payment. 14. Plaintiff Smego's motion for a docket sheet is granted (d/e 314). The clerk is directed to send Plaintiff Smego a copy of the docket sheet. 15. Plaintiffs' motion directing service (d/e 315) is denied with leave to renew after the status hearing on October 17, 2011, and after the Court enters an order finalizing the procedures to be followed in this case. 16. Plaintiffs' motions to join in Plaintiff Smego's filings are denied as unnecessary (d/e's 319, 322, 324, 325, 326, 327). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/11/2011. (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.
