Fonseca v. Nelson et al
| Arnulfo Fonseca |
| Todd Fort, Mike Jones, Randy Butler, Ken Clore, Charles David Nelson, Keith Brown, Steve Sloan, Mona Nelson, Saline County, Sheriff's Office of Saline County and State's Attorney's Office of Saline County |
| 3:2008cv00435 |
| June 12, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| O Office |
| Saline |
| Clifford J. Proud |
| Plaintiff |
| O |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
228
ORDER Granting re 225 Bill of Costs filed by Steve Sloan, Mona Nelson, Brad Neal, Keith Brown, Mike Jones, Todd Fort, State's Attorney's Office of Saline County, Ken Clore, Randy Butler, Sheriff's Office of Saline County, Saline County, 222 Bill of Costs filed by Mark LeVaughn. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 8/12/10. (amv)
|
|
Filing
221
ORDER granting 218 Motion for Bill of Costs. Costs are assessed against plaintiff Fonseca and in favor of defendant Nelson in the amount of $2,195.10 Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 4/12/10. (amv)
|
|
Filing
217
JUDGMENT in favor of Saline County, Sheriff's Office of Saline County, State's Attorney's Office of Saline County, Brad Neal, Charles David Nelson, David Blazier, Keith Brown, Ken Clore, Mark LeVaughn, Mike Jones, Mona Nelson, Randy Butler, Steve Sloan, Todd Fort, Village of Carrier Mills against Arnulfo Fonseca. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 3/16/10. (amv)
|
|
Filing
190
ORDER denying 178 Motion for Sanctions as to Defendant C. David Nelson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud on 10/5/09. (amv)
|
|
Filing
182
MEMORANDUM and ORDER, Granting 111 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Mark LeVaughn. (Judgment to enter at the close of the case.) Defendant Mark LeVaughn terminated. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/10/09. (acm)
|
|
Filing
170
ENTRY STRICKEN - ORDER: So the record is complete, the Court now DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to docket Neuman's motion to proceed to his appeal in forma pauperis and DENIES the motion as moot. See order for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/2/2009. (pjm) Modified on 9/2/2009 (myz ).
|
|
Filing
162
ORDER GRANTING 160 MOTION to Strike 157 Amended Complaint Claim 3: As further explained in the attached Order, the Court hereby GRANTS LeVaughn's motion to strike (Doc. 160). Additionally, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to STRIKE the third amended complaint (Doc. 161 ). Furthermore, the Court DIRECTS Fonseca to file his fourth amended complaint no later than August 3, 2009 so as to remove the allegations against LeVaughn in Count 3. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/29/2009. (djp)
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER GRANTING 145 MOTION to Strike 125 Amended Complaint: As further explained in the attached Order, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant LeVaughn's motion to strike (Doc. 145), DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to STRIKE Fonseca's first am ended complaint (Doc. 125), and DIRECTS Fonseca to file a second amended complaint consistent with the Court's ruling. The amended complaint shall be filed no later than July 15, 2009. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 7/9/2009. (djp)
|
|
Filing
148
MEMORANDUM and ORDER re 144 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Arnulfo Fonseca. Defendants, Village of Carrier Mills, David Blazier and Brad Neal are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 6/26/09. (acm)
|
|
Filing
110
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion to Dismiss: As fully explained in the attached Order, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART LeVaughn's motion to dismiss (Doc. 70). LeVaughn's motion is GRANTED only to th e following extent. Fonseca's § 1983 claims against LeVaughn in Counts 1, 2, and 3 are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice insofar as they allege that LeVaughn violated Fonseca's constitutional rights while testifying in a state criminal trial. Additionally, Fonseca's state law malicious prosecution claim in Count 6 is DISMISSED without prejudice. LeVaughn's motion is DENIED in all other respects. Fonseca's state law claims against LeVaughn (Counts 7 & 9) remain pending. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/20/2009.(djp)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER DENYING 79 Motion for Reconsideration: For the reasons thoroughly stated in the attached Order, the Court hereby DENIES Fonseca's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 79). Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/12/2009.(djp)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 33 MOTION to Dismiss; DENYING AS MOOT 63 MOTION to Stay Discovery; DENYING AS MOOT 75 MOTION for Leave to File: As further explained in the attached Order, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DE NIES IN PART Defendant David Nelson's motion to dismiss (Doc. 33). The claims against Defendant David Nelson in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 are DISMISSED. All claims against Defendant David Nelson in his official capacity in Counts 7 and 8 are DISMISSED. Additionally, the claims against Nelson in his individual capacity in Count 7 are dismissed, except the claims that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress by making false statements to the media and lying under oath. Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Nelson's motion to stay discovery (Doc. 63) and Nelson's motion for leave to file a supplemental response (Doc. 75). See the attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 1/12/2009. (djp)
|
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 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.
