Gill v. Sullivan et al
| Gill and Tyrone Gill |
| Sullivan, John Doe, Dr. Larson and Warden Sullivan |
| 3:2020cv00280 |
| March 16, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER: 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 Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/24/2020. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss by Tyrone Gill. Responses due by 4/27/2020. (jsm2) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: On 3/16/2020, this case was severed from Gill v. Siddiqui, et al, SDIL Case No. 19-cv-1101-SMY. 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 $400.00 filing fee in this case ($350.00 if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis). 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 April 20, 2020 to advise the Court in writing whether he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit. If he chooses to go forward, he should also send the $400.00 filing fee, or a motion and affidavit for leave to proceed to in forma pauperis (along with the required certification and Trust Fund statement). After the fee status is resolved, the Court will 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 4/20/2020). Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/16/2020. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against John Doe, Dr. Larson, Warden Sullivan, filed by Tyrone Gill. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(tjk) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 19-1101-SMY. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 3/16/2020. (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.
