Thames v. City Of Chicago et al
| Vincent Thames |
| City Of Chicago, Kenneth Boudreau, James Cassidy, Thomas Coughlin, William Foley, Pat McCafferty, Richard Paladino, Frank Valadez, L. Tuldier and As-yet Unknown City of Chicago Employees |
| 1:2012cv09170 |
| November 15, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| James B. Zagel |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Both |
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
393
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 7/19/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
315
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 1/4/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
167
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 11/17/2015. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 131 is granted and Count I of Plaintiff's first amended complaint 5 is reinstated in its entirety. Defendant City of Chicago's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery and trial 149 is granted. As a housekeeping matter, the Clerk is instructed to strike docket entry 144 as an active motion on the Court's docket. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
117
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/11/2014. Mailed notice(tbk, )
|
|
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: for the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiffs' consolidated motion to reconsider 107 and reinstates Count II in its entirety in each of Plaintiffs' complaints. 12-cv-9158, 146 ; 12-cv-9170, 107 ; 12-cv-9184, 96 . Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/9/2014. Mailed notice(tbk, )
|
|
Filing
84
ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court grants in part Defendants' motions to dismiss [35 and 43]. Count I is dismissed as time-barred as to allDefendants. Count II is dismissed as to all Defendants, in so far as Plaintiff alleges a viol ation of a generalized due process right to a fair trial; however, Defendants' motion is denied as to Count II, with respect to Plaintiff's Brady claims. Defendants motions are denied as to Counts III andIV. Count V is dismissed for failu re to state a claim for supervisory liability. Defendants' motions are denied as to Counts VI through XI. The dismissals of Plaintiffs' claims are without prejudice to repleading within 21 days if Plaintiffs believe that they can cure any of the deficiencies identified. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 11/13/2013. Mailed notice(tbk, )
|
|
Filing
66
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/10/2013: Before the Court are Defendants' motions for the entry of a protective order in three cases that have been referred to Magistrate Judge Finnegan for coordinated discovery proceedings. This motion originally was filed beforeJudge Finnegan, but returned to this Court by agreement of the assigned judges as it involves an issue on which the Court previously has ruled and which would be subject to appeal (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72) regardless of Judge Finnegan's ruling. For the reasons stated below, Defendants motions [docket number 81 in 12cv9158; docket number 52 in 12cv9170; docket number 51 in 12cv9184] are granted; Defendants are requested to resubmit to the Courts proposed order box a single protective order that will control in all three cases with the version of paragraph 2 that they have proposed. Mailed notice(tbk, )
|
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.
