Winston v. Posey et al
| Andre Winston |
| Erin Posey and TDF Behavior Committee Members |
| 4:2025cv04113 |
| June 3, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| Prisoner Petitions: Civil Detainee: Conditions of Confinement |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 21, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 JUDGMENT entered. (VH) |
TEXT ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 7/17/2025. On 6/3/2025, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On 6/4/2025, this Court denied his Petition and gave him leave to file a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 within 30 days. (d/e 6/4/2025). The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. Id. The deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a Complaint or requested an extension of time. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #3 is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 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 must set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the $605 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.(VH)
|
TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 6/4/2025. Plaintiff seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court in his Petition for Writ of Mandamus #1 . Plaintiff asks the Court to order Erin Posey to expunge the incident report dated 12/28/2024 from his record and to review or clarify the facility's rule regarding genital exposure. (Doc. #1 at p. 7). While the federal courts have the authority to compel action by an "officer, employee, or agency of the United States," this grant of authority does not extend to compelling action by state officials. Robinson v. People of State of Ill., 752 F.Supp. 248, 248-49 (N.D. Ill. 1990) ("Federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officers") (citing 28 U.S.C. 1361). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b) abolished the common-law writ of mandamus. Mandamus relief is not available against Erin Posey and the Behavior Committee members, who are state officials. In re Wolenski, 324 F.2d 309, 309 (3d Cir. 1963) (district court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus compelling action by a state official). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Petition #1 is DENIED. The Court will permit Plaintiff to file a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 within 30 days of this Order. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. (JS)
|
| Filing 4 +++ PRISONER TRUST FUND LEDGER by Andre Winston (SAG) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Andre Winston. Responses due by 6/17/2025 (SAG) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING. Please be advised that your case has been assigned to Judge Jonathan E Hawley. 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 6/23/2025. (Attachments: #1 Notice Regarding Privacy Issues)(SAG) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Mandamus by Plaintiff Andre Winston. Responses due by 6/17/2025 (SAG) |
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 $405 filing fee). Income includes all deposits from any source. The plaintiff Andre Winston 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 District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 6/3/2025. (SAG)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
TEXT ORDER entered by District Judge Jonathan E Hawley on 7/17/2025. On 6/3/2025, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On 6/4/2025, this Court denied his Petition and gave him leave to file a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 within 30 days. (d/e 6/4/2025). The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. Id. The deadline has now passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a Complaint or requested an extension of time. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #3 is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 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 must set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C). If Plaintiff chooses to appeal, he will be liable for the $605 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.(VH)