Gifford v. State Of Illinois et al
| Floyd Gifford |
| Stateville Medical Staff, State Of Illinois and Illinois Dept. of Corrections |
| 1:2012cv07970 |
| October 4, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Perry |
| Robert W. Gettleman |
| Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
19
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman on 4/10/2013: The clerk is directed to: (1) file the second amended complaint; (2) terminate Marna Ross as a defendant pursuant to the second amended complaint and Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; (3 ) add HCU Administrator Royce Brown- Reed and Dr. Obasi as defendants; (3) issue summonses for service of the second amended complaint on the defendants by the U.S. Marshal; and (4) send the plaintiff another copy of the courts filing instructions. T he plaintiff is once again reminded that he must (1) provide the court with the original plus a judges copy of every document filed, and (2) include a certificate of service with every court filing showing that a copy was mailed to opposing counsel. The status conference previously scheduled for April 18, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. is vacated and re-set to June 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (For further detail see Written Opinion)(nf, )
|
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.
