Morgan v. Peel et al
| Cornell Morgan |
| Paula Young, Ashlee Lopez, Dr. Catalino Bautista, . Peel and Liola Parish |
| 4:2019cv04077 |
| April 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendants Lopez, Parish and Young, c/o Hill CC on June 13, 2019. (DM, ilcd) |
| Waiver of Service Returned Unexecuted as to Defendants Young, Lopez and Parish, filed by Cornell Morgan. Notification received from Wexford that Defendants should be served at the facility. (DM, ilcd) |
| Filing 8 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendants Young, Lopez and Parish on 06/10/2019. (DM, ilcd) |
| Filing 7 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Bautista on 06/10/2019. (DM, ilcd) |
| Filing 6 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Defendant Peel, c/o Hill CC on 06/10/2019. (DM, ilcd) |
Filing 5
HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 06/10/2019. (DM, ilcd)
|
| Filing 4 MERIT REVIEW OPINION by United States District Judge Colin Stirling Bruce. Rule 16 Deadline 8/9/2019. Pursuant to its merit review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court finds that Plaintiff states a plausible Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs against all Defendants, an Eighth Amendment claim for inhumane conditions of confinement against Defendant Peel, and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Peel and Parish. The clerk is directed to attempt service on Defendants pursuant to the standard procedures. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Entered on 06/10/2019. (DM, ilcd) |
| Filing fee of $ 400.00 paid; receipt number 34626011338 (MAS, ilcd) |
| Filing 3 Letter from Cornell Morgan regarding receipt of filing fee notice and advising that filing fee is being processed. (MAS, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER: Plaintiff has filed a Complaint but has not paid the $400 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff must pay the $400 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. Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/12/2019. (MAS, ilcd)
|
| 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 Springfield Division, 600 E Monroe, Springfield,IL 62701. Merit Review Deadline set for 4/30/2019. (Attachment: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(MAS, ilcd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Catalino Bautista, Ashlee Lopez, Liola Parish,. Peel and Paula Young, filed by Cornell Morgan. (Attachment: #1 Exhibit B)(MAS, ilcd) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
