Farr v. Stocks et al
| Dearick Farr |
| Officer Stocks, K Pierce and Roger Moss |
| 3:2016cv00141 |
| February 8, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Fayette |
| Michael J. Reagan |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice for failure to comply with an Order of this Court (Doc. 7) and for failure to prosecute his claims. This dismissal shall count as one of Plaintiffs three allotted strikes within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 5/10/2016. (tjk)
|
|
Filing
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants STOCKS, PIERCE, and MOSS are also DISMISSED without prej udice from this action.Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint, which focuses on an Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement and/or deliberate indifference to medical needs claim(s), on or before April 29, 2016. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the allotted time, dismissal will become with prejudice. (Action due by 4/29/2016). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 3/24/2016. (tjk)
|
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 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.
