Loy v. Scott et al
| John Loy |
| Grace B Hou, Sandra Simpson, John Does, Sharon Coleman Weems, Jane Does, Greg Scott and P. Vincent |
| 4:2019cv04226 |
| November 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| James E Shadid |
| Prisoner Petitions: Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Plaintiff John Loy. Responses due by 1/13/2020 (RK, ilcd) |
| Filing 9 Remark: Blank Complaint form attached pursuant to Merit Review Order #8 . (SAG, ilcd) |
Filing 8
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 12/11/2019. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's initial complaint is dismissed as a violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2) Plaintiff must file an amended complaint clarifying his claims in compliance with this order within 21 days or on or before January 3, 2020. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint on or before January 3, 2020, or ignores the Court's directions, his case will be dismissed. 3) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied with leave to renew after Plaintiff has clarified his claims. #5 . Plaintiff is reminded he must demonstrate he has made a reasonable attempt to find counsel on his own. 4) Plaintiff's motion asking for leave to take more than 25 interrogatories is denied as moot. #6 . 5) The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff a blank complaint form and reset the internal merit review deadline within 30 days of this order. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG, ilcd)
|
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE of Service filed by John Loy. (SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Permission to Ask the Defendants More Than 25 Interrogatory Questions by Plaintiff John Loy. Responses due by 11/20/2019 (SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Request Counsel by Plaintiff John Loy. Responses due by 11/20/2019 (SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 4 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER. by John Loy (SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff John Loy. Responses due by 11/20/2019 (SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge James Shadid. Effective immediately, all documents should be mailed or scanned to the Peoria Division, 100 NE Monroe Street, Peoria, IL 61602. Merit Review Deadline set for 11/26/2019. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(SAG, ilcd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by John Loy. (Attachments: #1 proposed Summons)(SAG, ilcd) |
|
TEXT ORDER: This Court has instituted a reduced payment procedure for indigent plaintiffs who are institutionalized but who are not prisoners as defined in 28 USC Section 1915(h). A reduced payment is assessed of 50% of such plaintiff's average monthly income for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint (not to exceed the $400 filing fee). Income includes all deposits from any source. The plaintiff John Loy is currently detained at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, and is thus subject to the reduced payment procedure. However, the plaintiff's ledgers for the past six months show an average monthly income of $1.00 or less. No reduced filing fee will be assessed. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 11/6/2019. (SAG, 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.
