Dobbey v. Randle et al
Plaintiff: Lester Dobbey
Defendant: Michael Randle, Jackie Miller, Marcus Hardy, Shaun Bass, Marvin Reed and Leslie Turner
Case Number: 1:2010cv03965
Filed: June 25, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Will
Presiding Judge: Robert M. Dow
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 26, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 288 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 8/27/2015. Mailed notice(cdh, )
April 7, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 209 Order Signed by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 4/7/2014.Mailed notice(gel, )
August 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 131 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 8/16/2012. Mailed notice(tbk, )
May 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 37 WRITTEN Opinion: Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the Court's order of 11/2/2010 28 is denied. Plaintiff's motions requesting that the Court complete section 1915 review of Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint [32, 36] are granted. Plaintiff has submitted a second amended complaint containing two acceptable claims, but those claims have been inappropriately joined. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the Court severs Count 2 of Plaintiff's complaint and dire cts the Clerk to open a new case under a new case number. The Clerk is further directed to file Plaintiff's second amended complaint 30 , his IFP application 3 , and this order, in the newly opened case. Plaintiff may pursue Count 2 in the new ly opened case, and the Court grants him IFP status in the new case based on the IFP application that he submitted in this case. If Plaintiff proceeds with both cases, he will be responsible for paying the filing fee for both cases. If Plaintiff does not wish to pursue Count 2 as a separate lawsuit, he must notify the Court within 30 days of the date of this order. The Clerk is ordered to issue summonses as to Defendants in this case, as detailed in this order, and the U.S. Marshals Service is d irected to serve them. The Clerk is finally directed to send Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge Consent Form and Instructions for Submitting Documents along with a copy of this order. Entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 5/4/2011. Mailed notice(vcf, )
November 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 26 WRITTEN Opinion: Defendants' motion 19 requesting that the Court complete § 1915 review of Plaintiff's amended complaint is granted. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice to s ubmitting a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is granted thirty days in which to submit a second amended complaint (plus a judge's copy and service copies), in accordance with this order. Failure to submit a second amended complaint within thi rty days of the date of this order may result in summary dismissal of this case. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with an amended civil rights complaint form and instructions along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff's motions [8, 9, and 11] are denied as moot as they relate to Plaintiff's original complaint, which was superseded by the filing of the amended complaint. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 11/2/2010.Mailed notice(vcf, )
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dobbey v. Randle et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lester Dobbey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael Randle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jackie Miller
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Marcus Hardy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Shaun Bass
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Marvin Reed
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Leslie Turner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?