<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/xsl/rss2.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Allen et al v. Aramark Correctional Services LLC et al :: Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</title>
        <link>https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilcdce/3:2011cv03382/53289</link>
        <atom:link href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilcdce/3:2011cv03382/53289/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2026 20:56:37 -0800</pubDate>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2026 20:56:37 -0800</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</generator>
        <copyright>Copyright 2026 Justia Inc</copyright>
        <description>Allen et al v. Aramark Correctional Services LLC et al - Case Documents</description>
             
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 22]]>
                    </title>
                    <link>
                https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/3:2011cv03382/53289/22
            </link>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 01/25/2012. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. (1) Plaintiffs&#039; claims regarding the mechanically separated chicken and the food service are stayed, pending resolution of Smego v. Aramark, 10-3334, because resolu tion of the Smego case may moot or modify these claims. (2) Plaintiffs&#039; claims about their religious diet are dismissed without prejudice to filing an amended complaint. If Plaintiffs seek to pursue their religious diet claims in this case, they must file an amended complaint by February 14, 2012. The amended complaint must explain how the food preparation violates their religion; what actions they took to inform each Defendant of these alleged violations; each Defendant&#039;s response; and, each Defendant&#039;s participation in the alleged violations. (3) The hearing scheduled for January 30, 2012, is cancelled. The clerk is directed to notify the facility of the cancellation. (4) Defendant Simpson&#039;s motion to be dismissed is denied as moot (d/e 19). Defendant Simpson has been terminated as a defendant. (5) Plaintiffs&#039; motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the serving of mechanically separated chicken is denied (d/e 21), subject to renewal after the resolution of the Smego case.(DM, ilcd)
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid>
                https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/3:2011cv03382/53289/22
            </guid>
                <pubDate>
            Wed, 25 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0800
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                </channel>
</rss>
