Richardson v. City of Chicago et al
| Harold Richardson |
| City of Chicago, Kenneth Boudreau, Richard Paladino, James Cassidy, Thomas Coughlin, William Foley, Frank Valadez, Pat McCafferty, L. Tuldier and Unknown Current or Former City of Chicago Employees |
| 1:2012cv09184 |
| November 15, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Joan B. Gottschall |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
486
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 5/29/2018. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
431
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 7/19/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
335
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 1/4/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
159
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 11/17/2015. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 119 is granted and Count I of Plaintiff's complaint 1 is reinstated in its entirety. Defendant City of Chicago's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery and trial 137 is granted. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
106
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/11/2014. Mailed notice(tbk, )
|
|
Filing
104
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: for the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiffs' consolidated motion to reconsider 96 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
81
ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court grants in part Defendants' motions to dismiss 44 . Count I is dismissed as time-barred as to all Defendants. Count II is dismissed as to all Defendants, in so far as Plaintiff alleges a violation 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 failur e 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
62
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 discover y 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.
