Evans v. Lambert
Plaintiff: John Evans
Defendant: Andrew Lambert
Case Number: 3:2018cv03144
Filed: June 15, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office: Springfield Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: Joe Billy McDade
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 31 MERIT REVIEW--THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 4/24/2020. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), declines to assert supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law medical mal practice claim. Plaintiff's third amended complaint is DISMISSED. 2. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 3. Plaintiff must still pay the full docketing fee of $350 even though his case has been dis missed. 4. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)
October 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 26 MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 10/17/2019. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is DISMISSED. Plaintiff will be given a final opportunity, within 90 days, to file a third amended complaint. P laintiff is placed on notice that, if he files a third amended complaint and does not comply with these instructions, his complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. This is so, as courts are not required to allow a party to replead aft er "repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed." Stanard v Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 801 (7th Cir. 2011)(dismissing third amended complaint for plaintiff's failure "to follow basic instructions from the co urt."). If Plaintiff amends, the pleading is to be captioned "Third Amended Complaint" and is to include all viable claims. Failure to file a third amended complaint will result in dismissal of this case, without prejudice. 2. If Pla intiff intends to proceed on a state law medical malpractice claim, he must include this in his third amended complaint to be filed within 90 days, complying with 735 ILCS 5/2-622(a). 3. As Plaintiff is no longer in custody, he is to file an updated affidavit and IFP petition within 30 days, identifying his current sources of income. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Evans v. Lambert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Evans
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Andrew Lambert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?