Wilson v. Rundle et al
| Lorenzo Wilson |
| James Rundle, Anthony Buckley and Lieutenant Vilt |
| 4:2015cv04078 |
| July 7, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Rock Island Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Michael M. Mihm |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
77
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 2/8/2018. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 67 . The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.2) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for leave to appeal in f orma pauperis MUST identify the issues the Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the court in determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(c); See also Celske v Edwards, 164 F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for appealing so that the district judge "can make a reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith."); Walker v O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000 )(providing that a good faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could suppose...has some merit" from a legal perspective). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505.00 appellate filing fee regardles s of the outcome of the appeal. 3) Defendants may request costs by filing a timely Bill of Costs with the documentation required by the Local Rules. See CDIL LR 54.1. However, Defendants are instructed to file their request as a Motion for Bill of Co sts to allow the Court to consider Plaintiffs ability to pay. 4) Plaintiff must file a response to any motion for costs within 14 days of filing. Plaintiff is advised the burden is on the losing party to provide the Court with sufficient documentatio n to make this determination. Rivera v City of Chicago, 469F.3d 631, 635(7th Cir. 2006) quoting Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1039(11th Cir.2000). This documentation should include evidence in the form of anaffidavit or other documentary evid ence of both income and assets, as well as a schedule of expenses. Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635. 631. Plaintiff should also provide his anticipated release date. The Court will then consider the amount of costs, the good faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case. Id. If Plaintiff does not provide a response to Defendants' motion for costs within 14 days after the motion is filed, the Court will consider the request for costs without input from the Plaintiff. See full written Order. Civil Case Terminated.(VH, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
10
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 10/5/2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO: 1) Dismiss Defendant Vilt; 2) deny Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel with leave to renew 4 ; 3) deny Plaintiff&# 039;s motion for a merit review hearing as moot 9 ; 4) Attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures; and, 5) set an internal court deadline 60 days from the entry of this order for the court to check on the status of service and enter scheduling deadlines. (Rule 16 Deadline 12/4/2015) (See Full Written Merit Review Order).(VP, 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.
