Norfleet v. Brookman et al
| Marc Norfleet |
| Kent Brookman, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Jason Hart, Sherry Benton and Director John Baldwin |
| 3:2018cv02110 |
| November 21, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Staci M Yandle |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Reinstate Doc. 4 by Marc Norfleet. (jsm2) |
Filing 5
Order DENYING Motion to Stay (Doc. 4). Plaintiff has asked the Court to stay this case pending the results of a motion for reconsideration he intends to file in case 18-cv-1758-MJR by December 17, 2018. That date has passed and the Court has not received a motion to reconsider from Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. However, the Court will sua sponte extend Plaintiff's time to indicate whether he wishes to proceed with this case, and by extension its consideration of his IFP motion, by 30 days. Plaintiff shall indicate whether he wishes to proceed with this case no later than January 25, 2019. (Action due by 1/25/2019). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/19/2018. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Stay - Circuit Rule 8 by Marc Norfleet. (jsm2) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: On 11/20/2018, this case was severed from Norfleet v. Baldwin, et al, SDIL Case No. 18-cv-1758-MJR. Plaintiff should be aware of the consequences of proceeding with this action. First, the Court will screen the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and Plaintiff will incur a strike within the meaning of section 1915(g) if the Court determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Second, Plaintiff will be required to pay an additional $350.00 filing fee in this case. Of course, Plaintiff can also opt not to proceed with this action by voluntarily dismissing it, thereby avoiding the risk of a strike and the financial burden of an additional filing fee. Plaintiff should carefully consider these points, along with the merits and relative importance of this lawsuit, in deciding whether to proceed with it. Plaintiff shall have until December 26, 2018 to advise the Court in writing whether he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit. If he chooses to go forward, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee (if appropriate) and screen the complaint. On the other hand, if Plaintiff opts to voluntarily dismiss the case by the deadline, he will not have to pay a filing fee, the Court will not screen the complaint, and the case will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is WARNED that if he fails to respond to this Order by the deadline, he will be obligated to pay the full filing fee and this action will be dismissed for want of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with a court order. (Action due by 12/26/2018). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/21/2018. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against John Baldwin, Sherry Benton, Kent Brookman, Jason Hart, Jacqueline Lashbrook, filed by Marc Norfleet.(tjk) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 18-1758-MJR. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 11/20/2018. (tjk)
|
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 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.
