Montanez v. Baldwin et al
| Pierre A. Montanez |
| Patti Thull, Kevin Reichert, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Doe 1, John Baldwin, Andrew Spiller, Doe 2, Counselor Barton, Joshua Schoenbeck, Warden Walter Nicholson, Kelly Pierce, Patty Thull, John/Jane Does, Walter Nicholson and Sergeant Harris |
| 3:2018cv02146 |
| December 5, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Staci M Yandle |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 1.29 received, receipt number 34625089951 (cds) |
| Filing 17 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Pierre A. Montanez. (Attachments: #1 Supplement to Complaint, #2 Exhibits).(jsm2) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE OF MODIFICATION re #13 Amended Complaint, filed by Pierre A. Montanez. Entry modified to show document is a Supplement to Doc. 8 per Order at Doc. 15. (jsm2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
Filing 15
ORDER granting #14 Motion for Leave to File. On January 8, 2019, The Court entered an order granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). (Doc. 12 ). The amended pleading was filed on January 9, 2019. (Doc. #13 ). Upon further review, it is apparent that Plaintiff was actually seeking leave to supplement his Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) (as opposed to seeking leave to file a second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)). First, Plaintiff expressly asked for leave to supplement pursuant to Rule 15(d). (Doc. #9 ). Second, the allegations in the amended pleading arose after the initial complaint was filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (d) (plaintiff may seek leave to serve a supplemental pleading that sets out "any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented."). The allegations set forth in the amended pleading satisfy the express requirements of 15(d) in that they involve alleged acts of retaliation occurring after the complaint was filed. Further, given the early stage of this litigation, there do not appear to be any fairness factors that weigh against allowing supplementation. See Glatt v. Chicago Park Dist., 87 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 1996) (decisions to allow supplementation under Rule 15(d) are based on the same factors of fairness courts weigh when considering motions to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a)). Accordingly, the Court finds that supplementation is appropriate under Rule 15(d). The Court notes, however, that the amended pleading only includes supplemental allegations pertaining to alleged retaliation occurring after the original complaint was filed; it omits the claims raised in the Amended Complaint. Typically, the Court does not accept piecemeal amendments. But, because the motion was filed prior to the Court's preliminary threshold review and because Plaintiff clearly intended to supplement rather than replace the Amended Complaint, the Court will make an exception; the Court will construe the Amended Complaint to include Doc. #8 and the supplemental allegations contained in Doc. #13 . See Otis v. Demarasse, 886 F.3d 639, 64445 (7th Cir. 2018). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to revise the docket to reflect that the amended pleading filed at Doc. #13 is a supplement to the Amended Complaint at Doc. #8 (as opposed to a Second Amended Complaint). Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file the Amended Complaint and Supplemental Complaint together as one document tiled "Second Amended Complaint." Finally, the Court ADVISES Plaintiff that the Second Amended Complaint, including the supplemental allegations, are subject to review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. As part of that review, any improperly joined claims will be severed into separate cases. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/11/2019. (jcp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 14 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint by Pierre A. Montanez. (Proposed Third Amended Complaint received this date and under review.) (jsm2) |
| Filing 13 SUPPLEMENT to Doc. #8 against John Baldwin, Counselor Barton, John/Jane Does, Sergeant Harris, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Walter Nicholson, Kelly Pierce, Kevin Reichert, Joshua Schoenbeck, Andrew Spiller, Patty Thull, filed by Pierre A. Montanez.(jsm2) Modified on 1/14/2019 (jsm2). |
|
Filing 12
ORDER granting #9 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff has requested leave to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the Court should grant leave when justice so requires. Having so found, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file the proposed amended complaint. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/8/2019. (jcp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 11 MOTION/Request for Judicial Notice by Pierre A. Montanez. (jsm2) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Pending Preliminary Injunction by Pierre A. Montanez. (jsm2) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental/Amended Complaint by Pierre A. Montanez. (Proposed Supplemental/Amended Complaint received this date and under review.)(jsm2) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against John Baldwin, Counselor Barton, Doe 1, Doe 2, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Warden Nicholson, Kevin Reichert, Joshua Schoenbeck, Andrew Spiller, Patty Thull, filed by Pierre A. Montanez.(kek) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #6 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff has requested leave to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), a plaintiff may amend his pleadings once as a matter of course. The Clerk of Court is therefore DIRECTED to file the proposed amended complaint. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/28/2018. (jcp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint by Pierre A. Montanez. (Proposed Amended Complaint received this date and under review.) (jsm2) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Change of Address filed by Pierre A. Montanez. (cjo) |
| Scanning Menard terminated and Scanning Pontiac added per Change of Address filed. (cjo) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. #2 ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $95.99. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to forward the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court upon receipt of this Order. Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's prison trust fund account (including all deposits to the inmate account from any source) until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward payments from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of this Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $350.00 filing fee is paid.In addition, Plaintiff shall note that the filing fees for multiple cases cumulate. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000). A prisoner who files one suit must remit 20% of his monthly income to the Clerk of the Court until his fees have been paid; a prisoner who files a second suit or an appeal must remit 40%; and so on. Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436. "Five suits or appeals mean that the prisoner's entire monthly income must be turned over to the court until the fees have been paid." Id. Payments shall be mailed to: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois 62201. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Trust Fund Officer at the Menard Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/12/2018. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 18-cv-2146-SMY. The following is some information you should know regarding the initial stages of your lawsuit. After your filing fee status is determined, the Court will review your complaint to identify legally sufficient claims and defendants and dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. The Court will conduct this review within the next 60 days and inform you of the findings in a Merit Review Order. No other action will be taken in your case during this time, absent extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, you do not need to submit any evidence, argument, motions, or other documents. If you filed a motion for recruitment of counsel along with your complaint, it will not be considered until the merit review is complete. Please note that any motion for recruitment of counsel must include evidence of your own efforts to find counsel, such as a list of the attorneys you contacted and copies of letters you sent or received. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). If you do not receive a Merit Review Order within the next 60 days, you may file a motion requesting the status of your case. In the event your claim(s) survive the merit review, further information and instruction will be provided to you at that time. In addition, several administrative matters warrant mention. Any communication directed to the Court should be in the form of a motion or other pleading and not a letter. All mail should be sent to: Clerk's Office, U.S. District Court, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201. A copy of the Notice and Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge form is attached to this Order. Finally, you are advised that if your address changes, you must notify the Court within seven days of the change by filing a Notice of Change of Address. Failure to do so could result in the dismissal of your case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 12/5/2018. (jsm2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Pierre A. Montanez. (jsm2) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Pierre A. Montanez. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibits)(jsm2) |
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.
