Sultan v. Hodge et al
Plaintiff: Charles Sultan
Defendant: Marc Hodge, Mark Storm, Ty Bates and S A Godinez
Case Number: 3:2012cv00828
Filed: July 23, 2012
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Office: East St. Louis Office
County: Lawrence
Presiding Judge: G. Patrick Murphy
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
May 3, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend the complaint (Doc. 8 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: the Court's Order and the Clerk's Judgment, both dated August 30, 2012, (Docs. 6 and 7 ) are VACATED and leave to amend the complaint is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 10 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confineme nt claims and his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims are all DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Plaintiff's supplemental state law negligence claims are DISMISSED w ithout prejudice; and Defendants S.A. GODINEZ, TY BATES, MARC HODGE and MARK STORM are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. Plaintiff is ADVISED that this dismissal shall count as one of his allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 5/3/2013. (tjk)
August 30, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The entire case and Defendants Hodge, Storm, Bates and Gozinez shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff is advised that this dismissal shall count as one of his allotted "strikes" under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff's obligation to pay the filing fee for this action was incurred at the time the action was filed, thus the filing fee of $350 remains due and payable. Signed by Judge G. Patrick Murphy on 8/30/2012. (tjk)
Access additional case information on PACER

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

Search for this case: Sultan v. Hodge et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Charles Sultan
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Marc Hodge
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mark Storm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ty Bates
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: S A Godinez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | 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?