Hamilton, III v. Harsy et al
Plaintiff: Daniel Robert Hamilton, III
Defendant: Michael C. Carr, Blake Harsy, Timothy J. Ting and Charles Schwartz
Case Number: 3:2019cv01070
Filed: October 2, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Staci M Yandle
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 27, 2019 Filing 10 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (jsm2)
November 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER: Pursuant to Administrative Order 257, this case has been selected for reassignment to a Magistrate Judge. Within 21 days of this Order, any party not previously having filed a Notice and Consent to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form in this case must file the attached form indicating that party's consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent. Consent due by 12/11/2019.. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/20/2019. (Attachments: #1 Admin. Order 257)(jaj)
November 18, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER DENYING #6 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP motion") (Doc. 5 ) and asks this Court to waive payment of the filing fee. Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff filed more than three lawsuits as a prisoner that were dismissed as being frivolous, malicious, or meritless. See Hamilton v. Wright, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1346-NJR (S.D. Ill., dismissed March 3, 2017, for failure to state a claim); Hamilton v. Horn, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1050-NJR (S.D. Ill., dismissed June 2, 2017, for failure to state a claim); Hamilton v. Brookman, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1034-SMY (S.D. Ill., dismissed February 23, 2018, for failure to state a claim). As a result, Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Plaintiff did not set forth allegations suggesting that he is in imminent danger of serious injury in his Complaint (Doc. #1 ) or in his IFP motion (Doc. #3 ). He has not suggested that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury in his request for reconsideration (Doc. #6 ). Further, the Court cannot reasonably infer imminent danger of serious physical injury from the allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff's claims against an arresting officer, a State's Attorney, a Public Defender, and a Judge pertain to a criminal charge for which he was convicted and sentenced. He alleges constitutional violations with regard to the arrest and the trial proceedings. Allegations of past harm do not establish imminent danger. See Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330-31 (7th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff's motion (Doc. #6 ) is DENIED and the denial of the IFP Motion stands. The Court will grant Plaintiff an extension to December 14, 2019 to prepay his full $400.00 filing fee for this action. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice from the Court. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/18/2019. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
November 15, 2019 Filing 7 NOTICE OF MODIFICATION re #6 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Daniel Robert Hamilton, III. Additional attachments were not for this pleading. Document will be replaced this date. Correct, full document attached to this notice. No further action required.(jaj)
November 15, 2019 Filing 6 MOTION to Allow Case to Proceed without Pre-Payment of Filing Fees by Daniel Robert Hamilton, III. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jaj) (Main Document 6 replaced on 11/15/2019) (mar).
November 4, 2019 Set Deadlines: Action due ($400 filing fee) by 11/14/2019. (kek)
November 1, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER DENYING #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff filed more than three lawsuits as a prisoner that were dismissed as being frivolous, malicious, or meritless. See Hamilton v. Wright, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1346-NJR (S.D. Ill., dismissed March 3, 2017, for failure to state a claim); Hamilton v. Horn, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1050-NJR (S.D. Ill., dismissed June 2, 2017, for failure to state a claim); Hamilton v. Brookman, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1034-SMY (S.D. Ill., dismissed February 23, 2018, for failure to state a claim). As a result, Plaintiff cannot proceed IFP unless he faces imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). In his Complaint (Doc. #1 ), Plaintiff did not set forth allegations suggesting that he is in imminent danger of serious injury, and did not check the box on his IFP application that he was applying under that exception (Doc. #2 ). Therefore, the IFP Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff must prepay his full $400.00 filing fee for this action on or before November 14, 2019. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/1/2019. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
October 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 19-cv-1070-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 10/2/2019. (jsm2)
October 2, 2019 Filing 3 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Daniel Robert Hamilton, III. (jsm2)
October 2, 2019 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Daniel Robert Hamilton, III. (jsm2)
October 2, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Daniel Robert Hamilton, III.(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 this case: Hamilton, III v. Harsy et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael C. Carr
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: Blake Harsy
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: Timothy J. Ting
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: Charles Schwartz
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 ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Robert Hamilton, III
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.


Why Is My Information Online?