Torres v. Harris
| Juan J. Torres |
| Harris |
| 3:2019cv00516 |
| May 16, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Approved by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/27/2019. (tjk) |
Filing 6
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff was ordered to affirmatively notify the Court whether he wanted to proceed with this case or voluntarily dismiss it (Doc. 5). Plaintiff was also warned that his failure to respond would result in this case being dismissed without prejudice (Doc. 5). The deadline for responding has expired and the Court has not heard from Plaintiff. Consequently, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to follow an order of the Court and failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. Furthermore, despite the dismissal, Plaintiff remains obligated to pay the full filing fee. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1), and based on Plaintiff's previously submitted trust fund records for the six months immediately prior to the date the original case was filed, Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $12.89. 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. 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 Pinckneyville Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/27/2019. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Action due by 6/20/2019. (jsm2) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: On 5/16/2019, this case was severed from Torres v. Baldwin, et al, SDIL Case No. 19-cv-299-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 20, 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 Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/16/2019. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Juan J. Torres. (jaj) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Juan J. Torres. (jaj) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Harris filed by Juan J. Torres.(jaj) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Severing Case. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/15/2019. (jaj)
|
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
| Search for this case: Torres v. Harris | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Juan J. Torres | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Harris | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | 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.
