Hampton v. Cagle et al
| Demara Hampton |
| Randy Cagle, Inamte Services Corporation and Inmate Services Corporation |
| 4:2020cv04210 |
| October 1, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Sara Darrow |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 28, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Demara Hampton. Randy Cagle served on 10/22/2020, answer due 11/12/2020. (Boyd, Grant) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Demara Hampton. Inmate Services Served on 10/22/2020, answer due 11/12/2020 (Boyd, Grant) Modified on 11/4/2020 to reflect summons returned executed and answer due date (ED, ilcd). |
| Filing 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Demara Hampton.(Boyd, Grant) |
Filing 3
ORDER re subject matter jurisdiction. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 10/2/2020. (KZ, ilcd)
|
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to Randy Cagle and Inmate Services Corporation. Summons return to counsel for service. (Attachments: #1 ISC Summons)(RES, ilcd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Randy Cagle and Inmate Services Corporation. (Filing fee $ 400. Receipt number: 24626009588)., filed by Demara Hampton. (Attachments: #1 civil cover sheet, #2 RC Summons, #3 ISC Summons)(RES, 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.
