Staples v. Baldwin et al
| Jevaris Staples |
| John Baldwin, Christine Brannon and . Jensen |
| 4:2017cv04291 |
| October 30, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Rock Island Office |
| Cook |
| Sara Darrow |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
5
MERIT REVIEW OPINION Entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 12/11/2017. See written Order. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that the plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment claim for inhumane conditions of confinement against Defendants Christine Brannon and Lt. Jensen. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the courts discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 15. The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The clerk is directed to terminate Defendant John Baldwin as a defendant.The clerk is directed t o attempt service on the remaining defendants pursuant to the standard procedures.Plaintiffs motion for counsel 3 is denied, with leave to renew upon demonstrating that he made attempts to hire his own counsel. Plaintiffs 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.(ED, 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.
