Gonzalez v. Madigan et al
| Jason Gonzalez |
| Michael J. Madigan, Friends of Michael J. Madigan, 13th Ward Democratic Organization, Prison Review Board, Shaw Decremer, Silvana Tabares, Ray Hanania, Joe Barbosa and Grasiela Rodriguez |
| 1:2016cv07915 |
| August 5, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Matthew F. Kennelly |
| Voting |
| 28 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
299
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 8/23/2019: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 277]. The Court denies as moot the plaintiff's motions to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses [dkt. nos. 180, 181]. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Mailed notice. (pjg, )
|
|
Filing
108
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 3/17/2018: For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion and order, the Court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims in part and denies it in part [dkt. no. 71]. The Court dismisses counts 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 30, 31, and 32 of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss counts 38 and 39. (mk)
|
|
Filing
64
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants Gonzales's motion [dkt. no. 53] to alter the judgment. The Court vacates the judgment entered on June 20, 2017 and directs the Clerk to reinstate the case. The Court also grants Gonzales leave to file his proposed second amended complaint asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). Gonzales's second amended complaint alleges the exact same counts that were in his first amended complaint, plus newly asserted count 40, the section 1985(3) claim. Therefore, for the reasons described in this opinion, the Court dismisses counts 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16, 19-22, 24-26, 28, 34, and 36 in plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court also dism isses count 37 in the second amended complaint as against Hanania only. In addition, the Court dismisses any claim to the extent it is brought against Madigan and Tabares in their official capacities. Finally, the Court declines to strike Gonzales� 39;s request for injunctive relief. The ruling date of September 13, 2017 is converted to a status hearing on that date at 9:30 a.m. The Court will set at that time deadlines for making Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, amending the pleadings and adding parties, and completing fact discovery. Counsel are to be prepared to propose appropriate deadlines. (mk)
|
|
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 6/20/2017: For the reasons stated, the Court grants the joint defendants' motion to dismiss [dkt. no. 48]. And because it is apparent that Gonzales cannot make allegat ions plausibly supporting a contention that one or more of the defendants acted under color of state law, there is no good reason to give him further attempts to amend. The Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing with prejudice counts 1-4, 7-10, 13-16, 23-28, and 33-37 of the amended complaint and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction counts 5-6, 11-12, 17-18, 20-22, 29-32, and 38-39 of the amended complaint. Mailed notice. (pjg, )
|
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.
