Bentz v. Hardy et al
| David Robert Bentz |
| Warden Hardy, Assistant Warden Pfister, Counselor C. Harris, Officer Robinson and Officer Kovack |
| 1:2012cv10426 |
| November 5, 2012 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Randolph |
| Harry D. Leinenweber |
| Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
71
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 1/20/2015:Mailed notice(rth, )
|
|
Filing
2
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 12/27/2012: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for further explanation of its September 5 and November 8, 2012, orders 33 . This order clarifies those orders. Plaintiff's s econd amended complaint 31 may proceed against Stateville Officers Zernike, and Palmer. These Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiff's first claim in this complaint that Plaintiff was forced to share a cell with an unsanitary cellmate , which allegedly posed a threat to his safety. The clerk shall issue summonses for service of the second amended complaint on Zernike and Palmer. Plaintiff's second claim that disciplinary proceedings, which followed a fight between Plaintiff a nd his cellmate, were unfair and discriminatory is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's third claim that he endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement while in segregation is dismissed from this case without prejudice, but shall be the basis of another suit in this Court. The clerk is directed to: (1) open a new case, using the second amended complaint 31 as the complaint, (2) include a copy of this order with the second amended complaint or as a separate entry in the new case, and (3) list as Defendants Warden Hardy, Assistant Warden Pfister, Counselor C. Harris and Officers Robinson and Kovack. Once the case is opened, the clerk shall send Plaintiff an in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date the IFP application is sent to either submit a completed application or prepay the $350 filing fee; his failure to do so will result in dismissal of the newly opened case. Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel [ 35 ] and for an extension of time [34, 36] are denied. All Defendants, except for the seven discussed above, are dismissed. (For further details see Written Opinion). Mailed notice. (et, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
