Sanders v. Springfield Police Department et al
| John M Sanders |
| Springfield Police Department, Tyler Lynn, David Dyer and Zachary Roan |
| 3:2016cv03007 |
| January 8, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Sangamon |
| Sue E. Myerscough |
| Tom Schanzle-Haskins |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 |
| None |
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
20
ORDER AND OPINION: This case is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint. Parties to bear their own costs. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/16/2017. (MJC, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER AND OPINION: The defendants' motion to dismiss (d/e 7 ) is GRANTED, and Sanders's complaint (d/e 1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice. If Sanders seeks leave to file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) , he shall include sufficient facts in his proposed amended complaint to show that he is entitled to relief. For record-keeping purposes, the City of Springfield is substituted as a defendant in place of the Springfield Police Department, and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to update the case caption accordingly. SEE WRITTEN ORDER. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 6/15/2016. (MJ, 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.
