Crayton v. DHS of Illinois et al
| Keimon Crayton |
| DHS of Illinois and DCFS of Illinois |
| 4:2022cv04053 |
| March 17, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Michael M Mihm |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| NOTICE: The Clerk of the Court has been notified of Plaintiff's change of address in case number 23-4005. As a courtesy to Plaintiff, and in order to maintain accurate information in the Court Electronic Filing system, Plaintiff's address has been updated in this closed case. No further action is required. (KE) |
| Filing 42 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER (SAG) |
| Filing 41 MANDATE of USCA as to #11 Notice of Appeal filed by Keimon Crayton. The pro se appellant was DENIED leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis by thedistrict court on June 24, 2022. The pro se appellant has neither paid the $505.00 appellate fees nor filed a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis in the Appellate Court, as prescribed in Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay the required docketing fee pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appellant pay the appellate fee of $505.00 to the clerk of the district court. The clerk of the district court shall collect the appellate fees from the prisoner's trust fund account using the mechanism of Section 1915(b). Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). (Attachments: #1 Notice of Issuance of Mandate)(JS) |
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/26/2022. Pursuant to the 8/26/2022 mandate, in appellate case number 22-1693, from the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, the agency having custody of the plaintiff, Keimon Crayton, is directed to remit the appellate docketing fee of $505.00 from his prison trust fund account if such funds are available. If he does not have $505.00 in his account, the agency must send 20 percent of the current balance or the average balance during the past six months, whichever amount is higher;thereafter, the agency shall begin forwarding monthly payments from the plaintiff's trust fund account to the Clerk of Court each time the plaintiff's amount exceeds $10.00 until the statutory appeal fee of $505.00 is paid in its entirety.(JS)
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 8/26/2022. On August 26, 2022, the Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff's appeal of this matter based on his failure to pay the required docketing fee. (See Final Order, Doc. #41 ). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add/Remove Defendants #39 is DENIED. (SAG)
|
| Filing 40 Mail Returned as Undeliverable, re Text Order entered 6/24/2022. Mail sent to Keimon Crayton. (SAG) |
| Filing 39 MOTION for Leave to Add/Remove Defendants by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 7/25/2022 (SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/8/2022. Plaintiff files a Motion #38 requesting to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis because he cannot afford to pay the filing fee. He also requests to add Fisher and Lee as Defendants and to remove IDHS. On 6/7/2022, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis #35 because he did not state the grounds for his appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). The Court gave Plaintiff 14 days to identify the issues he planned to present on appeal, but he did not comply. He also fails to identify the issues he will present on appeal in his instant Motion #38 . Plaintiff previously requested to add defendants to this case, but the Court deemed his motion to be moot, as an appeal of this Courts Merit Review Order is currently pending. (d/e 6/24/2022). This Court has repeatedly advised Plaintiff that this Court has been divested of jurisdiction because Plaintiff's case is on appeal. See Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193 (7th Cir. 1995) (d/e 4/29/2022; 6/1/2022; 6/7/2022; 6/24/2022). Plaintiff's Motion #38 is DENIED. (SAG)
|
| Filing 38 MOTION by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 7/21/2022 (SAG) |
| Filing 37 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/24/2022. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Leave to Add Defendants #36 , requesting to name various individuals as Defendants in this case. The Court dismissed this case pursuant to a Merit Review Order on 4/14/2022 and entered Judgment. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal, and his appeal remains pending. As previously stated, this Court has been divested of jurisdiction because Plaintiff's case is on appeal. See Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193 (7th Cir. 1995). Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion #36 is MOOT. Additionally, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis on 6/7/2022 because the motion did not state the grounds for his appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). Plaintiff was given 14 days to identify the issues he planned to present on appeal. The time period has now passed, and Plaintiff has not complied. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Text Order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (SAG)
|
| Filing 36 MOTION for Leave to Add Defendants by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 6/24/2022 (SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/7/2022. Plaintiff has filed additional Notices #31 , #32 , and #33 and a Motion to Amend Complaint #34 , requesting to change the relief he sought in his complaint against certain Defendants. As previously stated, this Court has been divested of jurisdiction because Plaintiff's case is on appeal. See Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193 (7th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs Notices and Motion #34 are MOOT. Plaintiff also files #35 , a Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), stating: "I, Plaintiff, am requesting a 'leave to appeal in forma pauperis' to be granted due to my insufficient funds." In its Merit Review Order #9 , the Court directed Plaintiff to set forth the issues he plans to present on appeal in a Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP, but Plaintiff has failed to do so. "An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). A good faith appeal is an appeal that "a reasonable person could suppose... has some merit." Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000). The Court is unable to make a finding as to whether Plaintiff has a good faith basis for appeal. #35 is DENIED. Plaintiff is hereby given 14 days in which to identify those issues which he intends to present on appeal. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Text Order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. (SAG)
|
| Filing 35 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 6/21/2022 (TK) |
| Filing 34 MOTION to Amend Complaint by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 6/21/2022 (SAG) |
| Filing 33 NOTICE by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 32 NOTICE by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 31 NOTICE of additional claims by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/1/2022. Judgment was entered on 4/14/2022. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal #11 on 4/25/2022, which was not accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal in forma pauperis. Since then, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the Court's Merit Review Order #15 , a Motion #25 requesting release from IDHS custody, and numerous Notices #16 , #17 , #22 , #26 , #27 , #28 , #29 , and #30 . As Plaintiff's case is on appeal before the Seventh Circuit, the district court is divested of jurisdiction. "[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significanceit confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Kusay v. United States, 62 F.3d 192, 193 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, (1982)). Plaintiff's Motions #15 , #25 and Notices are rendered MOOT. (SAG)
|
| Filing 30 NOTICE by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 29 NOTICE by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 28 NOTICE of claims by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 27 NOTICE of relief sought by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 26 NOTICE of claims by Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 25 MOTION by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 6/6/2022 (SAG) |
| Filing 24 Mail Returned as Undeliverable, re Text Order 5/9/2022. Mail sent to Keimon Crayton at Rock Island Co. Jail. (SAG) |
| Filing 23 Mail Returned as Undeliverable, re #11 Notice of Appeal. Mail sent to Keimon Crayton at Rock Island Co. Jail. (SAG) |
| Filing 22 NOTICE of claims filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 21 Mail Returned as Undeliverable, regarding 4/29/22 text order. (ED) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Change of Address and NOTICE of Claims by Keimon Crayton. New address is Chester Mental Health Center. (SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 5/9/2022. Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting copies of all documents in this case #18 . Plaintiff does not point to any specific document needed to litigate this case, and Plaintiff was previously advised he must submit a copying fee with any request for copies #2 . Plaintiff's Motion #18 is DENIED. However, the Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the docket sheet. (SAG)
|
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Change of Address by Keimon Crayton. No new address given. (SAG) |
| Filing 18 MOTION for copies by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 5/13/2022 (SAG) |
| Filing 17 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Claims filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/29/2022. Plaintiff files a Motion for Reconsideration #15 of the Court's merit review order #9 . Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal #11 based on the dismissal of his case for failure to state a claim. The appeal remains pending. By filing a notice of appeal, Plaintiff has deprived this Court of the authority to decide his motion. See McCarter v. Retirement Plan for Dist. Managers of American Family Ins. Group, 2008 WL 2833288, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 24, 2008). The filing of an appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. Id. (citing Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1989)). Therefore, a decision on #15 is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff should direct all further filings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case Number 22-1693. (SAG)
|
| Filing 15 MOTION for Reconsideration re #9 Merit Review Opinion by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 5/12/2022 (JS) |
| Filing 14 PLRA Fee NOTICE and Order re #11 Notice of Appeal. (JS) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re #11 Notice of Appeal filed by Keimon Crayton. USCA Case Number 22-1693. (JS) |
| Filing 12 Short Record of Appeal Sent to US Court of Appeals re #11 Notice of Appeal (SAG) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #9 Merit Review Order by Keimon Crayton. (SAG) |
| Filing 10 JUDGMENT entered in a civil case (SAG) |
|
Filing 9
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/14/2022. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Any amendment to the complaint would be futile as Plaintiff's claim against state agencies for monetary damages is barred by the Eleventh Amendment and his claim related to his state charge or conviction is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 2) This case is now closed. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment pursuant to Fed. r. Civ. P. 58. 3) Plaintiff must still pay the filing fee of $350 even though his case has been dismissed. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall continue to make monthly payments to the Clerk of Court, as directed in the Court's prior Order. (See Text Order 4/4/2022). 4) This dismissal shall count as one of the Plaintiff's three allotted strikes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). The clerk of the court is directed to record the Plaintiff's strike in the three-strike log. 5) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the $505 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(SAG)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Status Update, MOTION to Request Counsel and MOTION for Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton. Responses due by 4/25/2022 (SAG) |
| Filing 6 +++ SEALED LETTER. Filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Complaint filed by Plaintiff Keimon Crayton (SAG) |
| Filing 4 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER (SAG) (Main Document 4 replaced on 4/4/2022) (SAG). |
| Filing 3 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Keimon Crayton.(SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER granting #3 Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff's trust fund ledgers indicate he has no funds to make an initial partial payment of the filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b) (4), the initial partial filing fee is waived. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court. Income includes all deposits from any source. The agency having custody of the plaintiff shall forward these payments each time Plaintiff's account exceeds $10, until the filing fee of $350 is paid in full. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff's place of confinement to the attention of the Trust Fund Office. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 4/4/2022. (SAG)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Michael Mihm. 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 4/6/2022. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(SAG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Keimon Crayton. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(SAG) |
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 3/17/2022. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint but has not paid the $402 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiff must pay the $402 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.(SAG)
|
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.
