Tipton v. Green
| Darnell Tipton |
| . Green |
| 3:2020cv03345 |
| December 28, 2020 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| James E Shadid |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 2/23/2021. The pro se Plaintiff has accumulated three strikes pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the Warden failed to provide him with his stimulus check. Since Plaintiff's claim clearly did not allege he was in imminent danger, he was allowed time to pay the filing fee in full. See January 14, 2021, Text Order. Plaintiff's case was ultimately dismissed. See February 8, 2021, Text Order. Plaintiff has now filed a "Motion, Facts to Consider, Reopen Litigation" #10 . Plaintiff's motion begins by arguing he faced wrongful convictions in 1986 and 1987. Plaintiff then briefly mentions his cell conditions. None of these claims were before the Court in this lawsuit. Plaintiff's initial complaint was limited to his concerns over his stimulus check. This case is closed. Plaintiff is reminded any lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C.1983 must be filed within the two-year statute of limitations period. See Wilson v Giesen, 956 F.2d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 1992); Farrell v. McDonough, 966 F.2d 279, 280-82 (7th Cir. 1992). In addition, if Plaintiff now wants to file a lawsuit concerning his cell conditions, he must file a new lawsuit and either pay the filing fee in full or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). If Plaintiff wishes to proceed IFP, he MUST clearly state that he has accumulated three strikes. If Plaintiff again fails to mention his three strikes status in any new case concerning prison conditions, his case may be dismissed. (SAG)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION to Reconsider Facts and Reopen Conviction by Plaintiff Darnell Tipton. Responses due by 3/3/2021 (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 9 JUDGMENT entered in a civil case (SAG, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 2/8/2021. The pro se Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [IFP] on December 28, 2020. On January 14, 2021, the Court noted Plaintiff had failed to mention his three strikes status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) and he failed to provide his litigation history. See January 14, 2021 Text Order. In addition, Plaintiff's complaint alleged a Warden had failed to provide Plaintiff with his stimulus check. "Therefore, his allegations do not come close to showing Plaintiff is in imminent danger of physical injury." January 14, 2021, Text Order, citing Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (imminent danger requires a "real and proximate" threat); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir.2002) (the threat must be real and proximate, and the potential consequence must be serious physical injury). The Court denied Plaintiff's IFP motion and directed Plaintiff to pay the full $402 filing fee on or before February 4, 20201. "In addition, if Plaintiff does pay the filing fee in full, he must show cause why his case should not be dismissed for intentionally failing to inform the Court of his three-strikes status." February 14, 2021, Text Order. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee. Instead, he has filed a Motion To Consider #7 and a Motion to Reopen Convictions #8 . Both documents are difficult to decipher. However, Plaintiff admits he did not inform the Court of his three strikes status, but again complains about the alleged mishandling of his stimulus check and asks the Court to consider his claims #7 . Plaintiff's second motion appears to question the validity of his criminal conviction, a topic which is not current before this Court #8 . The motions are denied #7 , #8 . Plaintiff's complaint does not allege imminent danger and he has not paid the filing fee as directed. Therefore, this case is dismissed in its entirety for failure to pay the fee. All other pending motions are denied as moot #4 , atty. Plaintiff is advised in any future litigation concerning prison conditions, Plaintiff must pay the filing fee in full, or he MUST inform the Court of his three strikes status in both his complaint and his motion to proceed IFP. Failure to provide this information will result in the immediate dismissal of his future lawsuit.(SAG, ilcd)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Reopen Convictions by Plaintiff Darnell Tipton. Responses due by 2/16/2021 (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Consider Case by Plaintiff Darnell Tipton. Responses due by 2/16/2021 (VH, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 1/14/2021. The pro se Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 as well as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [IFP] and a motion for appointment of counsel [1,] #3 , #4 . Plaintiff is well-aware he has accumulated three strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). See Tipton v Roth, Case No. 91-4085; Tipton v. Malley, Case No. 93-6313); Tipton v King, 09-0047; and Tipton v. Lashbrook, Case No. 18-1519 (listing strikes) in the Northern District of Illinois. Nonetheless, Plaintiff failed to provide a list of all previous litigation and failed to mention his three strikes status or imminent danger in his complaint or his IFP motion #1 , #2 . Plaintiff also failed to provide a copy of the required trust fund ledgers with his IFP motion. Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff's complaint alleges the Warden has failed to provide him with this stimulus check. Therefore, his allegations do not come close to showing Plaintiff is in imminent danger of physical injury. See Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (imminent danger requires a "real and proximate" threat); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir.2002) (the threat must be real and proximate, and the potential consequence must be serious physical injury). Consequently, Plaintiff has not established imminent danger sufficient to overcome the three-strikes restriction, and his motion to proceed IFP is denied #3 . Plaintiff must pay the full $402 filing fee within 21 days or on or before February 4, 2021. In addition, if Plaintiff does pay the filing fee in full, he must show cause why his case should not be dismissed for intentionally failing to inform the Court of his three-strikes status. Plaintiff must provide his response on or before February 4, 2021.(SAG, ilcd)
|
| Filing 6 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER. by Darnell Tipton (AEM, ilcd) |
| Filing 5 Letter from Clerk of the Court requesting Trust Fund Ledgers. (KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Darnell Tipton. Responses due by 1/11/2021 (KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 3 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Darnell Tipton.(KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge James Shadid. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Peoria Division,100 NE Monroe Street,Peoria,IL 61602.Merit Review Deadline set for 1/19/2021. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE, ilcd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Darnell Tipton. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelope)(KE, ilcd) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
| Search for this case: Tipton v. Green | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Darnell Tipton | |
| 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: . Green | |
| 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.
