Stevens v. Swift
| Vernice Stevens |
| Ryan G Lockner and Swift Transportation |
| 1:2020cv07594 |
| December 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Manish S Shah |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 EXHIBITS by Plaintiff Vernice Stevens. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by U.S. Marshal's Office as to Swift Transportation waiver sent on 1/6/2021, answer due 3/8/2021. (nsf, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued along with USM 285 form(s), certified copy of order dated 12/28/20 to the U.S. Marshal's Office for service as to defendant Swift Transportation via email. (nsf, ) |
| Filing 9 COMPLAINT filed by Vernice Stevens; Jury demand.(no copies) (nsf, ) |
Filing 8
ORDER: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. The court screens plaintiff's complaint under 28 USC sec. 1915(e)(2), and concludes that the complaint may be filed limited to plaintiff's claim for disability discrimination under the ADA. The allegations concerning plaintiff's need for a C-PAP machine and an allegedly pretextual administration of a random drug test leading to adverse employment action provide the gist of a plausible claim warranting a response from defendant Swift Transportation. But nothing in plaintiff's recitation of events plausibly suggests race, age, or sex discrimination. Although plaintiff checked those boxes and alleges she was discriminated against, the details of her complaint do not support an inference that race, age, or sex was the reason for adverse employment action. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice. The clerk shall file the complaint #1 and correct the caption and docket to name only Swift Transportation as the defendant (plaintiff included the name of Swift's lawyer in the caption, but he is not properly a party to the case). The motion for attorney representation #5 is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff has only asked one law firm to represent her and given the number of lawyers in the Chicago region, more effort is necessary to amount to a good-faith effort to find a lawyer on her own. In addition, plaintiff is a college graduate and the quality of her filings demonstrates that she is capable of representing herself at least in the early stages of a lawsuit. The U.S. Marshal is appointed to serve defendant and the clerk shall send the completed USM-285 7 to the Marshal along with a summons for service. The Marshal is authorized to mail a request for waiver of service to Defendant in the manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) before attempting personal service. Signed by the Honorable Manish S. Shah on 12/28/2020. Mailed notice (nsf, )
|
| Filing 6 RECEIVED Summons (tg, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Vernice Stevens for attorney representation (tg, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Vernice Stevens for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (tg, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Vernice Stevens (tg, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (tg, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Vernice Stevens (tg, ) |
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.
