Human Rights Defense Center v. Baldwin et al
| Human Rights Defense Center |
| John Baldwin, Daniel Sullivan, Shelith Hansbro, Stephanie Dorethy, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Kim Butler, Karen Jaimet, Michael Melvin, David Rains, Jeff Dennison, David Gomez, Randy Pfister, Matthew Swalls, Cameron Watson, Stacey Carter, Billy Rose, David Shemonic, Pamela Scott, Tyler Bradley, Rick Anderson, Sherry Benton, Billie Greer, Melissa Phoenix and Does 1-30 |
| 1:2018cv01136 |
| February 13, 2018 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| XX US, Outside the State of IL |
| Robert M. Dow |
| Other 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
368
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendants' motion for reconsideration 357 is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied to the extent that Defendants seek to reverse the Court's award of declaratory relief as to HRDC's facial at tacks on the STG Provision and Catch-All Provision in the 2022 AD, as well as HRDC's facial attacks on the notice and appeal provisions of the 2006 and 2019 AD. It is granted, and the Court's order dated March 31, 2025 356 is amended to r eflect the same, insofar as Individual Defendants Hansbro, Carter, Scott, Watson, Anderson, Baldwin, Sullivan, and Jeffreys are entitled to summary judgment on HRDC's claims against each Defendant in their individual capacity. There remains a di spute of fact that precludes summary judgment as to HRDC's due process facial challenge to the 2022 AD. The parties are to appear for an in person status hearing on 2/10/26 at 10:00 AM. Signed by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 1/16/2026. Mailed notice. (jg, )
|
|
Filing
356
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: HRDC's motion for summary judgment 290 and Defendants' motion for summary judgment 305 are granted in part and denied in part. Enter order. HRDC is entitled to declaratory relief as to their facial attacks on the STG Provision and Catch All Provision of the 2022 AD. HRDC is further entitled to declaratory relief as to their facial attack on the notice and appeal provisions of the 2006 and 2019 AD. HRDC is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief a s to the censorship of PLN Vol. 27, No. 3 (March 2016), PLN Vol. 27, No. 7 (July 2016), and CLN Vol. 1 No. 10 (September 2018) and the absence of notice and appeal opportunities as to PLN Vol. 27, No. 7 PLN Vol. 28, No. 2, PLN Vol. 28, No. 3, PLN Vol . 28, No. 4, PLN Vol. 28, No. 8, PLN Vol. 28, No. 10, PLN Vol. 29, No. 1, PLN Vol. 29, No. 2, PLN Vol. 29, No. 3, PLN Vol. 29, No. 5, PLN Vol. 29, No. 6, PLN Vol. 29, No. 7. Finally, HRDC is entitled to nominal damages against Defendants Hansbro (Fir st Amendment claim), Carter (First Amendment claim), Scott (Fourteenth Amendment claim), Watson (Fourteenth Amendment claim), Anderson (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), and Baldwin (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims). The following Defenda nts are entitled to summary judgment: Dennison (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Dorethy (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Gomez (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Jaimet (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Swalls (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Butler (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Rose (First and Fourteenth Amendment claims), Hansbro (Fourteenth Amendment claim), Carter (Fourteenth Amendment claim), Lashbrook (First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claim), Bradley (First Amendment claim), Rose (First and Fourteenth Amendment claim), Scott (First Amendment claim), Shemonic (First and Fourteenth Amendment claim), Melvin (First and Fourteenth Amendment claim), Pfister (First and Fourteenth Amendm ent claim), Rains (First and Fourteenth Amendment claim), Watson (First Amendment claim), Sullivan (Fourteenth Amendment claim), Jeffreys (First Amendment claim). The following Defendants are thus dismissed with prejudice from the litigation: Denniso n, Dorethy, Gomez, Jaimet, Swalls, Butler, Lashbrook, Bradley, Rose, Shemonic, Melvin, Pfister, and Rains. Finally, the Court denies summary judgment to both parties on HRDC's due process facial challenge to the 2022 AD,the First Amendment as ap plied as-applied challenges related to PLN Vol. 28, No. 2 (February 2017), PLN Vol. 28, No. 3 (March 2017), PLN Vol. 28, No. 4 (April 2017), PLN Vol. 29, No. 2 (February 2018), PLN Vol. 29, No. 3 (March 2018), PLN Vol. 29, No. 5 (May 2018), PLN Vol. 29, No. 6 (June 2018), PLN Vol. 29, No. 7 (July 2018), PLN Vol. 29, No. 8 (August 2018), and the Fourteenth Amendment as-applied challenge to PLN Vol. 30, No. 11. The parties are to confer and file a status report regarding the remaining claims by May 5, 2025. Signed by the Honorable Mary M. Rowland on 3/31/2025. Mailed notice. (kp, )
|
|
Filing
215
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER: For the reasons in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this day, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to its Discovery Requests and to Compel Defendants to Permit its Request for Inspection 194 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants shall produce responsive information and documents within their possession, custody, or control consistent with this opinion by October 4, 2022. Signed by the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani on 9/22/2022. Mailed notice (ags)
|
|
Filing
197
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 8/4/2022. The Court: grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file sur-reply 180 ; grants Benton's and Pelker's motion for judgment on the pleadings [163-1]; a nd denies Jeffreys' and Baldwin's motion for judgment on the pleadings 158 . As noted above, the dismissal of the claims against Benton and Pelker is without prejudice and with leave to replead by September 5, 2022, if Plaintiff believes that it can do so consistent with this opinion and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Emailed notice(cdh, )
|
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.
