Randle v. Hubert et al
| Michael Randle |
| . Hubert and John/Jane Does |
| 3:2025cv03265 |
| September 5, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 10/7/2025. On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed this case under 42 USC Section 1983 alleging a violation of his Constitutional rights. However, Plaintiff did not pay the required fee for filing this case, nor did he move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, on September 8, 2025, the Court warned Plaintiff that he must either pay the required $405.00 filing fee or move for leave to proceed IFP if he wanted to proceed in this matter. The Court gave Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days from the date of the Court's September 8, 2025 Order to comply. As of today, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's September 8, 2025 Order. More specifically, Plaintiff has failed to pay the required filing fee or move for leave to proceed IFP. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's September 8, 2025 Order and based upon Plaintiff's failure either to pay the required filing fee or to obtain IFP status. This case is closed. No judgment to enter. (KE)
|
| Filing 4 Remark: IFP Form to Plaintiff pursuant to Text Order entered this date. (KE) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 9/8/2025. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint but has not paid the $405 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff must pay the $405 filing fee in full or file a petition to proceed in forma pauperis with attached trust fund ledgers for the last 6 months. Failure to comply without good cause will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice, and the Plaintiff will still be responsible for payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1914. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the forms for proceeding in forma pauperis. (KE)
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 9/8/2025. Plaintiff's motion to request counsel #3 is DENIED. The Court generally will not consider recruiting counsel for a pro se plaintiff until the Court determines that he possess a claim upon which relief can be granted after the Court conducts a review of the complaint. Plaintiff may renew his motion if his claim survives that review that the Court will conduct in the near future. In addition, the Court reminds Plaintiff that he must sign every pleading, motion, memorandum, and response that he files with the Court. If he fails to do so, the Court may strike that document without considering it on the merits. (KE)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff Michael Randle. Responses due by 9/19/2025 (KE) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Colin Stirling Bruce. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Urbana Division, 201 S Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61802.Merit Review Deadline set for 9/25/2025. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Michael Randle.(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.
