Perkins v. Dart

Perkins v. Dart

Plaintiff:	Charles Perkins
Defendant:	Thomas Dart
Case Number:	1:2012cv00577
Filed:	January 26, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Cook
Presiding Judge:	Ronald A. Guzman
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 5, 2014	Filing 133 ORDER: Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike defendants' responses to paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of plaintiffs' 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of material facts [dkt 125]. Plaintiffs seek to strike these r esponses, so that they are not considered by the Court in its ruling on the plaintiffs First Amended Motion for Class Certification. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby denies plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' responses to plaintiffs' 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of material facts [dkt 125]. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/5/2014. Mailed notice (np, )
July 16, 2013	Filing 102 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/16/2013: For the reasons stated below, the Court does not dismiss the case as moot at this time. Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's motion to join no later than August 8, 2013. No reply necessary unless ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees as the prevailing party [94-1] is denied as premature. Plaintiffs may renew their motion, if necessary, at the appropriate time. Mailed notice (cjg, )

Date Filed

Document Text

March 5, 2014

Filing 133 ORDER: Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike defendants' responses to paragraphs 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of plaintiffs' 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of material facts [dkt 125]. Plaintiffs seek to strike these r esponses, so that they are not considered by the Court in its ruling on the plaintiffs First Amended Motion for Class Certification. For the reasons stated below, the Court hereby denies plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' responses to plaintiffs' 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of material facts [dkt 125]. Signed by the Honorable Susan E. Cox on 3/5/2014. Mailed notice (np, )

July 16, 2013

Filing 102 WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/16/2013: For the reasons stated below, the Court does not dismiss the case as moot at this time. Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's motion to join no later than August 8, 2013. No reply necessary unless ordered by the Court. Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees as the prevailing party [94-1] is denied as premature. Plaintiffs may renew their motion, if necessary, at the appropriate time. Mailed notice (cjg, )

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: Perkins v. Dart
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Thomas Dart
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 ]
Plaintiff: Charles Perkins
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?