Hughes v. Godinez et al
| Cavinaugh L Hughes |
| S.A. Godinez, Tarry Williams, Jerry Baldwin, Moldovan and John Does |
| 1:2015cv01685 |
| February 20, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Livingston |
| Milton I. Shadur |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
35
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Motion to dismiss 22 granted in part and denied in part. For the reasons given in this opinion, this Court dismisses all claims against Godinez (who is terminated from the case) as well as all prayers for injunctiv e relief and the contentions stated in Counts I, III and VII of the Complaint. But Hughes is entitled to proceed with his claims against Baldwin and Williams concerning procedural due process, free exercise of religion and deliberate indifference, as well as with his claims against Moldovan and the John Doe defendants arising from the August 5 incident, the tampering with his food and retaliation. This action is set for a status hearing at 9:15 a.m. December 18, 2015 to discuss further proceedings and appropriate scheduling. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 12/11/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/17/2015. Mailed notice. (sj, )
|
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.
