Omar v. Robeson et al
| Bashir Omar |
| Michael S Robeson, Books, Robert P Fishel, . Volk, Woodward, Robert E Hughes, Jason N Hart, Richard Harrington, Melissa Phoenix, S A Godinez, Tarry Williams, Jennifer Johnson, Randy Pfister, Jane Doe and John Doe |
| 3:2015cv03130 |
| April 30, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Livingston |
| Sara Darrow |
| 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
176
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 2/1/23. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial 171 is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 170 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded $45,000 in attorneys' fees and $3,572.20 in costs. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (ANW)
|
|
Filing
14
MERIT REVIEW OPINION - Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 7/14/2015. (Rule 16 Deadline 9/14/2015.) See written Order. Plaintiffs allegations against the WICC Defendants and Director Godinez and Jane Doe/John Doe IDOC defendants only, as identified in Plaintiff's Complaint pp. 1-8, will proceed in this case and will be set for Merit Review hearing at 9:00 a.m., on August 6, 2015. Plaintiffs allegations as to the Menard defendants, Warden Harrington, Melissa Phoenix, Lt. Hughes, and Officer Hart as identified in Plaintiff's Complaint pp. 8-14, are severed from the instant case. The Clerk is to open a new case: Omar v. Harrington, Phoenix, Hughes and Hart and file a copy of the current complaint in that case. Plaintiff must, howe ver, file an Amended Complaint within 30 days, separately realleging his claims against the Menard defendants as its own distinct complaint. If Plaintiff does not file the amended complaint within the time provided, this claim will be dismissed with out prejudice. If Plaintiff files the Amended Complaint, the case will be transferred to the Southern District of Illinois for a determination as to whether the plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis, and for a merit review of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed against the Menard Defendants he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss within 30 days and will not incur the filing fee. Plaintiffs allegations against Warden Randy Pfister, that he was subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement at Pontiac Correctional Center during the summer of 2014, identified in Plaintiffs Complaint pp. 8-14, are severed from the instant case. The Clerk is to open a new Ce ntral District case: Omar v. Pfister and file a copy of the current complaint in that case. Plaintiff must, however, file an Amended Complaint within 30 days, separately realleging his claims against Defendant Pfister as its own distinct complaint. If Plaintiff does not file the amended complaint within the time provided, this claim will be dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff files the Amended Complaint, the case will be scheduled for a determination as to whether the plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in that action in forma pauperis, and for a merit review of his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed with this action against the Defendant Pfister he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss within 30 days and will not incur the filing fee. (LN, 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.
