Tatum v. Williams
| Bobby Tatum |
| C/O Williams |
| 3:2021cv01697 |
| December 16, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| David W Dugan |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MOTION for status by Bobby Tatum. (jaj) |
Filing 12
ORDER: Plaintiff has opted to proceed with this action and is obligated to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis based on his application in the original case, 21-cv-1101-NJR. 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 $76.82. 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 Shawnee Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 1/27/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER DENYING #9 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint and to add parties based on allegations in his motion. Plaintiff cannot modify the parties or allegations in his Complaint in a piecemeal fashion; the proper method is to seek leave to file an Amended Complaint that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and SDIL Local Rule 15.1. An Amended Complaint supersedes and replaces the original Complaint, rendering it void. Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n. 1 (7th Cir. 2004). As such, an Amended Complaint must stand on its own without reference to any other pleading. The motion is, therefore, DENIED. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 1/26/2022. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER: This case was severed from Tatum v. Jeffreys, et al, SDIL Case No. 3:21-cv-01101-NJR. On December 16, 2021, Plaintiff was instructed to advise the Court in writing whether he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has now filed a motion (Doc. 9), which the Court construes as his notice that he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit. The request in the motion will be addressed in a separate Order. Now that Plaintiff has opted to proceed with this action, the Court will review the Complaint (Doc. 2) to identify claims and defendants and to dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The Court will then inform Plaintiff of the findings in a Merit Review Order. No other action will be taken in the case during this time, absent extraordinary circumstances. If Plaintiff's claim(s) survive the merit review, the Court will send a Notice of Lawsuit and Waiver of Service Form to the appropriate defendant(s). This will be the first time the defendant(s) will be informed of the lawsuit. After a defendant signs the waiver and returns it, that defendant will then have 60 days to file an answer to the complaint. If a defendant does not return the completed waiver, the Court will follow up as necessary to complete service on that defendant. When all of the defendants have filed answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures. All requests for file-stamped copies of documents must be accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope and an extra copy of the document to be filed-stamped and returned. The Clerk cannot photocopy documents for Plaintiff unless the copy fee of $0.50 per page is submitted in advance. Finally, Plaintiff must promptly notify the court in writing of any change of address. Failure to notify the court of a change in address could result in the dismissal of this case. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 1/26/2022. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint and Correct the Defendant by Bobby Tatum. (jaj) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT/REASSIGNMENT: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257, this case will remain with the assigned District Judge David W. Dugan. This Notice does not alter any prior referrals of motions or matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1-3). (jaj)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
| Filing 7 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (jaj) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: On 12/16/2021, this case was severed from Tatum v. Jeffreys, et al, SDIL Case No. 21-cv-1101-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 January 20, 2022 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. (Action due by 1/20/2022). Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 12/16/2021. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE FROM CLERK Instructing Tatum to file Notice and Consent to Proceed Before A Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257, within 21 days of this Notice, you must file the attached form indicating your consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge or an affirmative declination to consent. Consent/Non-Consent to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form sent to Tatum on 12/16/2021. Consent due by 1/6/2022 (tjk) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Bobby Tatum. (tjk) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Bobby Tatum. (tjk) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against C/O Williams, filed by Bobby Tatum.(tjk) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 21-1101-NJR. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 12/15/2021. (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
| Search for this case: Tatum v. Williams | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bobby Tatum | |
| 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: C/O Williams | |
| 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.
