Loupe v. Donathan
| Jerry A Reynolds, Steven B Loupe, . Cynthia and Samantha |
| Department of Human Services and Greg Donathan |
| 4:2023cv04035 |
| March 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Colin Stirling Bruce |
| Prisoner Petitions: Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/27/2023. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint #14 is DENIED. Plaintiff asks the Court for permission to file an amended complaint to add additional Defendants. However, in order to be liable under 42 USC Section 1983, an individual must have been personally involved in depriving the plaintiff of his or her Constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that demonstrate that the individuals who he wants to name as Defendants personally violated his Constitutional rights. Rather, Plaintiff simply identifies a list of names in the caption of his proposed amended complaint and, then, uses the term "Defendants" in the body of his proposed amended complaint, without any factual distinction amongst the Defendants. As such, Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint is insufficient to allow him to add any proposed new Defendants. (KE)
|
| Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Steven B Loupe. Responses due by 5/1/2023. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Scanning Facility Cover Sheets) (TC) |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/12/23. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint #13 is DENIED. Plaintiff asks the Court for permission to file an amended complaint to add additional Defendants or to correct Defendants' names. However, the Court does not allow piecemeal amendments to be made to a complaint. If he desires to amend his Complaint to add a Defendant, to add a claim, or to substitute a Defendant, Plaintiff should file a motion seeking leave to do so in which he identifies the changes that he desires to make to his Complaint. In addition, Plaintiff should attach a complete, proposed amended complaint that, if granted leave to file, will completely replace his original Complaint and will stand on its own without reference to or reliance upon her Original Complaint. Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). The proposed Amended Complaint should explain what any and all Defendants did or did not do, including the proposed new Defendant(s), and why their actions or inactions violated Plaintiffs Constitutional rights. Until he follows this process, Plaintiff's motion is denied. (ANW)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendant's names by Plaintiff Steven B Loupe. Responses due by 4/24/2023.(DS) |
| Filing 12 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Steven B Loupe. (DS) |
| Filing 11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Steven B Loupe. Greg Donathan waiver sent on 4/3/2023, answer due 6/2/2023. (KE) |
| Filing 10 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF SERVICE and Notice of Lawsuit sent to Greg Donathan on 4/3/2023. (KE) |
|
Filing 9
HIPAA QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/3/2023. See written order. (KE)
|
|
Filing 8
MERIT REVIEW ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/3/2023. Pursuant to its review, the Court finds that Plaintiff Steven Loupe's (a/k/a "Samantha") Complaint states a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim against Defendant Greg Donathan. Any additional claims shall not be included in the case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss Plaintiff Jerry A. Reynolds (a/k/a "Cynthia") as a Plaintiff. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to substitute Director Greg Donathan as the party Defendant for Defendant Department of Human Services. Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to effect service of process upon Defendant Director Donathan pursuant to the Court's standard procedures. The Clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis #5 GRANTED. See written order. (KE)
|
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 4/3/2023. Plaintiff's motion to stop harassment #7 is DENIED. Plaintiff has filed the instant motion asking the Court to enter an order that would stop the harassment that he is allegedly receiving at Rushville. Essentially, Plaintiff moves for a mandatory preliminary injunction. Mandatory injunctions are very rarely issued except on the clearest equitable grounds. W.A. Mack v. General Motors Corp., 260 F.2d 886, 890 (7th Cir. 1958). "To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show that its case has 'some likelihood of success on the merits' and that it has 'no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is denied.'" Stuller, Inc. v. Steak N Shake Enter., Inc., 695 F.3d 676, 678 (7th Cir. 2012)(quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 694 (7th Cir. 2011). If the moving party meets these threshold requirements, the district court "must consider the irreparable harm that the nonmoving party will suffer if preliminary relief is granted, balancing such harm against the irreparable harm the moving party will suffer if relief is denied." Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2001). The district court must also consider the public's interest in an injunction. Id. In this balancing of harms, the district court must weigh these factors against one another "in a sliding scale analysis." Christian Legal Soc'y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 859 (7th Cir. 2006). "The sliding scale approach is not mathematical in nature, rather 'it is more properly characterized as subjective and intuitive, one which permits district courts to weigh the competing considerations and mold appropriate relief.'" Ty, Inc., 237 F.3d at 895-96 (quoting Abbot Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 12 (7th Cir. 1992)). A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997). The movant must carry his burden of persuasion on each of the elements necessary to enter injunctive relief in order to obtain injunctive relief. Rust Envt. and Infrastructure, Inc. v. Teunissen, 131 F.3d 1210, 1219 (7th Cir. 1997)(holding that a party seeking a preliminary injunction must satisfy each element). Here, Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden. Plaintiff has offered no evidence in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order. Instead, Plaintiff simply makes the request. As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the elements necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied. (KE)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Stop Defendants From Harassment & Retaliation by Plaintiff Jerry A Reynolds. Responses due by 4/13/2023. (DS) |
|
TEXT ORDER: This Court has instituted a reduced filing fee procedure for indigent plaintiffs who are institutionalized but who are not prisoners as defined in 28 USC Section 1915(h). A reduced payment will be assessed of 50% of such plaintiff's average monthly income for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint (not to exceed the $402 filing fee). Income includes all deposits from any source. Plaintiff Steven Loupe is currently detained at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, and is thus subject to the reduced payment procedure. Plaintiff's ledgers for the past six months show an average monthly income of $83.36. Plaintiff is ordered to send an institutional check or money order in the amount of $41.68, payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court within 30 days from the date of this order. The reduced fee may be waived if the plaintiff, within 14 days of this order, files a motion to waive the fee and demonstrates good cause for such waiver. Entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 3/14/2023. (SAG)
|
| Filing 6 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER. by Steven B Loupe. (DS) |
| Filing 5 PETITION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed by Steven B Loupe.(DS) |
|
Filing 4
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 3/2/2023. Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint but have not paid the $402 filing fee nor filed a petition to proceed in forma pauperis. Within 21 days of the entry of this order, Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs will still be responsible for payment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1914. The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiffs the forms for proceeding in forma pauperis. (KE)
|
| Filing 3 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER by Jerry A Reynolds. (KE) |
| 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 Urbana Division, 201 S Vine Street, Urbana, IL 61802.Merit Review Deadline set for 3/22/2023. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(KE) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Steven B Loupe, Jerry A Reynolds. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelopes)(KE) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/2/2023: #3 Cover Letter) (KE). |
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.
