Beckel v. Seymour et al
| Andrew W Beckel |
| J Seymour, John/Jane Does, S Jumper, P Lodge, C Parsons, S Caraway, G Carreon and W Pennock |
| 4:2017cv04256 |
| September 8, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Rock Island Office |
| Schuyler |
| Joe Billy McDade |
| Conditions of Confinement |
| 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
7
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Joe Billy McDade on 2/8/2018. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff shall have 30 days from the entry of this order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint will replace Plaintiff's original complaint in its entirety and must contain all allegations against all Defendants. Piecemeal amendments are n ot accepted. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 2. Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis 3 is DENIED with leave to reassert if he files an amended complaint. Plaintiff's motion for status 5 is rendered MOOT. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment 6 , is DENIED as Defendants have not been served and are not in default. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, 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.
