Hunt v. Cox et al
| Tavaris Earl Hunt |
| Michael Cox, Tiona Farrington, Doug Stephens and Llona Fluornoy |
| 3:2023cv03331 |
| November 14, 2023 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Doug Stephens answer due 1/26/2024. (TC) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Change of Address by Tavaris Earl Hunt. New address is Champaign County Jail, 204 E. Main St., Urbana, IL 61801. (JS) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Change of Address by Tavaris Earl Hunt to Champaign County Jail, 204 E. Main St, Urbana, IL 61801. (BMG) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Tavaris Earl Hunt. Doug Stephens waiver sent on 11/27/2023, answer due 1/26/2024. (TC) Modified on 1/2/2024 to correct the dates (TC). |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Tavaris Earl Hunt. Tiona Farrington waiver sent on 11/27/2023, answer due 1/26/2024. (KE) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/11/2023. Plaintiff's allegations of excessive force and retaliation in violation of the United States Constitution relate to occurrences while he was an IDOC prisoner. However, Plaintiff had been released by the time he filed his Complaint #1 and is not in custody at this time, so the Prison Litigation Reform Act does not apply to Plaintiff's case at this time. Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 1998). Because the PLRA does not apply to this lawsuit at this time, the Court need not and will not perform a merit review of Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff filed a Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis #4 , but since he has already paid the filing fee for this lawsuit that motion is MOOT. Plaintiff must effect service of process on Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. To the extent that Plaintiff is asking the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to effect service of process upon Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff has offered no reason why he cannot serve Defendants himself. the Court exercises its discretion to decline effecting service on Defendants for Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3). Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 803 (7th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to Rule 4, if Plaintiff does not effect service on a Defendant within 90 days of the filing of his Complaint (that is, by February 4, 2024) this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice as to that Defendant. (KE)
|
| Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Tavaris Earl Hunt. Michael Cox waiver sent on 11/27/2023, answer due 1/26/2024. (TC) |
| Filing 6 **STRICKEN** MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Tavaris Earl Hunt. Responses due by 12/21/2023. (TC) Modified on 12/7/2023 to show **STRICKEN** as docketed in the wrong case per 12/7/23 Text Order (TC). |
| Filing 5 **STRICKEN** MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Tavaris Earl Hunt. Responses due by 12/21/2023. (TC) Modified on 12/7/2023 to show **STRICKEN** as docketed in the wrong case per 12/7/23 Text Order (TC). |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Tavaris Earl Hunt. Responses due by 12/21/2023. (TC) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/23 striking Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #5 as it was filed in the incorrect case. (TC) Modified on 12/7/2023 (TC).
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/7/23 striking Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #6 as it was filed in the incorrect case. (TC)
|
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Service.(AEM) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Michael Mihm. 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 12/4/2023. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Tavaris Earl Hunt. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(KE) |
| Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number 200000907 (KE) |
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
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.
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 12/11/2023. Plaintiff's allegations of excessive force and retaliation in violation of the United States Constitution relate to occurrences while he was an IDOC prisoner. However, Plaintiff had been released by the time he filed his Complaint #1 and is not in custody at this time, so the Prison Litigation Reform Act does not apply to Plaintiff's case at this time. Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 1998). Because the PLRA does not apply to this lawsuit at this time, the Court need not and will not perform a merit review of Plaintiff's allegations. Plaintiff filed a Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis #4 , but since he has already paid the filing fee for this lawsuit that motion is MOOT. Plaintiff must effect service of process on Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. To the extent that Plaintiff is asking the Court to exercise its discretionary authority to effect service of process upon Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), Plaintiff's request is denied. Plaintiff has offered no reason why he cannot serve Defendants himself. the Court exercises its discretion to decline effecting service on Defendants for Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3). Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 803 (7th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to Rule 4, if Plaintiff does not effect service on a Defendant within 90 days of the filing of his Complaint (that is, by February 4, 2024) this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice as to that Defendant. (KE)