Holmes et al v. Godinez et al
| Ralph Holmes, Daniel Baxter, George Childress, Hannibal Eason, Curtis Foster, Curtis Halterman, Billy Johnson, Wendell Lancaster, Daniel Lord, Aaron Winfert and Jason Wright |
| Salvador A Godinez and Rachel McKinzie |
| 1:2011cv02961 |
| May 4, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Lee |
| Marvin E. Aspen |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
818
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 12/23/2022. Mailed notice. (exr, )
|
|
Filing
780
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 8/3/2022. Mailed notice (ec)
|
|
Filing
573
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Young B. Kim on 6/8/2020. (ma,)
|
|
Filing
342
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Presently before us are eight motions in limine filed by the parties in preparation for trial. We deny the parties' motions 323 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 329 , 330 but reopen discovery for sixty days for the limited purposes outlined below. The status date of August 25, 2016 is stricken and reset to December 8, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. It is so ordered. Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 8/2/2016. Mailed notice(ntf, )
|
|
Filing
290
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: As explained herein, Defendant's motion to exclude the expert testimony Elizabeth Stanosheck as unreliable is denied with prejudice and his motion to exclude her testimony as Cumulative is denied without prejudice . In addition, we find that Plaintiffs have satisfied the class certification requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2). Daniel Baxter and Curtis Foster, however, are inadequate class representatives and are dismissed from the case. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted with our modification to the class definition as stated in Section II(B) of our discussion. Finally, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied in part and granted in part. Summary Judgment is denied as to Counts I (ADA), II (Rehabilitation Act), III (RLUIPA), V (free exercise), and VIII (due process), and is granted as to Counts IV (free speech) and VII (equal protection). As for Count VI (cruel and unusual punishment), summary judgment is granted to the extent the claim is based on Plaintiffs' allegations that IDOC placed them in communicative isolation and failed to notify them of non-emergency events, and is denied as to Plaintiffs' allegations that IDOC failed to not ify them of emergency events and to provideadequate medical care. Accordingly, Counts IV and VII are dismissed, as are the aspects of Count VI related to communicative isolation and non-emergency notifications. The case will proceed as a class action on Counts I, II, III, V, VIII, and the remaining aspects of Count VI. Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 10/8/2015. Mailed notice. (mgh, )
|
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 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.
