Towns v. Ramos et al

Towns v. Ramos et al

Case Number:	3:2005cv00375
Filed:	May 26, 2005
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Office:	East St. Louis Office
Presiding Judge:	G. Patrick Murphy
Presiding Judge:	Donald G. Wilkerson
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 23, 2010	Filing 102 ORDER regarding Pavey Hearing held on January 25, 2010, pursuant to 85 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' Mandate, and clarifying 101 Minute Entry GRANTING IN PART 99 Defendants' MOTION to Compel Discovery. On January 25, 2010, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), and heard arguments regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 99). After further consideration of the papers submit ted, and based upon arguments made at the hearing, the Court hereby finds that Plaintiff has, in fact, exhausted all available administrative remedies as to Defendants Holton, Baker, Eubanks, Dagner and Unknown Party Grievance Officers. Further, Defe ndants' Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED in part; only as it applies to Defendants Christopher Casten and Jerry Witthoft. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to respond only to those discovery requests made by Defendants Casten and Witthoft, on or before March 16, 2010. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 2/23/2010. (ehb)
December 28, 2009	Filing 94 ORDER APPOINTING Attorney W. Mark Sickles, McKenna Storer, 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602, for Plaintiff Sherrell C. Towns for this case only. Attorney Sickles is directed to file his entry of appearance on or before 1/6/2010. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 12/28/2009. (ssd)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 23, 2010

Filing 102 ORDER regarding Pavey Hearing held on January 25, 2010, pursuant to 85 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' Mandate, and clarifying 101 Minute Entry GRANTING IN PART 99 Defendants' MOTION to Compel Discovery. On January 25, 2010, this Court conducted an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), and heard arguments regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 99). After further consideration of the papers submit ted, and based upon arguments made at the hearing, the Court hereby finds that Plaintiff has, in fact, exhausted all available administrative remedies as to Defendants Holton, Baker, Eubanks, Dagner and Unknown Party Grievance Officers. Further, Defe ndants' Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED in part; only as it applies to Defendants Christopher Casten and Jerry Witthoft. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED to respond only to those discovery requests made by Defendants Casten and Witthoft, on or before March 16, 2010. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 2/23/2010. (ehb)

December 28, 2009

Filing 94 ORDER APPOINTING Attorney W. Mark Sickles, McKenna Storer, 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400, Chicago, Illinois 60602, for Plaintiff Sherrell C. Towns for this case only. Attorney Sickles is directed to file his entry of appearance on or before 1/6/2010. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 12/28/2009. (ssd)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Towns v. Ramos et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?