Holmes v. Williamson et al
| Larry M Holmes |
| Neil Williamson, Enos Brents, Terry Durr, William Strayer, Scott Loftus, Chris Doetsch, Thomas Pipkin, Brent Ferro, Gregory Clemonds, Bryant Carey, Todd Kuerger, Rob Berola and Bill Smith |
| 3:2011cv03230 |
| July 25, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Sangamon |
| Byron G. Cudmore |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| 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
72
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1) The motion for summary judgment by Defendants Brents, Durr, Strayer and Williamson is granted (d/e 65 ). 2) Supplemental summary judgment motions are due February 28, 2013. Defendants Brents, Durr, Strayer and Will iamson are terminated. 3) The final pretrial conference is rescheduled to August 12, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. by personal appearance of counsel. 4) The jury trial is rescheduled to September 3, 2013 on the Court's trailing trial calendar. The actual date for the trial will be determined at the final pretrial conference. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/17/2012. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
21
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1)Plaintiff's motion to amend his Complaint is granted (d/e 20). 2) The clerk is directed to add Bill Smith as a defendant. The clerk is further directed to send a waiver of service to Defendant Smith, along with a copy of this Complaint, Plaintiff's motion to amend, and this order. The scheduling conference remains set for November 7, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 8/24/2011. (VM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
6
OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1) Pursuant to the Court's merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states the following federal constitutional claims: a) First Amendment claim of retaliation for Plaintiff's exercise of his First Amendment rights; and, b) Fourteenth Amendment due process claims based on the conditions of confinement at the Jail, the alleged humiliating strip search, the alleged nine-hour placement in a restraint chair wi thout breaks, the alleged threats against Plaintiff, and the alleged intentional dissemination of the addresses and phone numbers of Plaintiff's family to other inmates. 2)At this point, the case proceeds solely on the federal claims identified in paragraph one above. See CDIL-LR 16.3(C)("At any time a Case Management Order is issued by the court defining the remaining claims in the case, the case will proceed solely on those claims... except in the Court's discretion on motion b y a party for good cause shown, or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15."). 3)This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a Prisoner Scheduling Order directing service and setting a Rule 16 conference. 4)Defendants shal l file an answer within the time prescribed by Local Rule. A motion to dismiss is not an answer. The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the Federal Rules. The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the issues and claims stated in this Case Management Order. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 7/27/2011. (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.
