Chencinski v. Arnold et al
| Robert Chencinski |
| Chaplin Arnold and Warden Thompson |
| 3:2019cv00500 |
| May 13, 2019 |
| 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 May 20, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff has informed the Court that he does not wish to proceed with this case. Consequently, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This dismissal shall not count as a strike within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and the record shall reflect that the filing fee is satisfied and no payments shall be collected from Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/20/2019. (anp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Chencinski. Responses due by 6/20/2019 (jsm2) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Action due by 6/17/2019. (jsm2) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: On 5/10/2019, this case was severed from Chencinski v. Myers, et al, SDIL Case No. 19-cv-485-NJR. 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 June 17, 2019 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. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/13/2019. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Robert Chencinski. (tjk) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Robert Chencinski. (tjk) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Robert Chencinski. (tjk) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Chaplin Arnold, Warden Thompson, filed by Robert Chencinski.(tjk) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 19-485-NJR. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/10/2019. (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.
