Scott v. People of Illinois, et al et al
| Jovon Scott |
| People of Illinois, et al and Attorney General of the State of Illinois |
| 1:2018cv06913 |
| October 11, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Prisoner: Habeas Corpus |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Order, Petitioner's motion #3 to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner shall pay the $5 filing fee by 12/10/2018, or else the case will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to: (1) terminate as defendants the People of the State of Illinois, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and Cook County; (2) add Stephanie Dorethy, Warden, Hill Correctional Center, as Respondent; and (3) alter the case short-caption to Scott v. Dorethy. To track the case only (no appearance is required), a status hearing is set for 12/21/2018 at 8:30 a.m. Emailed and mailed notice(slb, )
|
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Petitioner Jovon Scott for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Exhibits) (jh, ) |
| Filing 2 PRISONER CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jh, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED PETITION for writ of habeas corpus filed by Jovon Scott. (Exhibits) (jh, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
