Thomason v. Dallison et al
| Jeremy Thomason |
| Dallison, Sara Stover, Wexford Medical Provider, Lackey, Rob Jeffreys, Fierro and Dee Dee Brookhart |
| 3:2022cv00834 |
| April 26, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Staci M Yandle |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 402.00 received, receipt number 446250104652 (mar) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Supplement the Pleadings by Jeremy Thomason. (kare) |
Filing 8
ORDER. The Court acknowledges receipt and review of Plaintiff's "Motion for Clarification for Jurisdiction of Complaint" (Doc. 7). Because the motion does not request any relief from the Court, it is termed and no further action taken. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 5/3/2022. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Clarification for Jurisdiction of Complaint by Jeremy Thomason. (kare) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Filing Fee due on or before 5/31/2022 (kare) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #3 ). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). The Court is not satisfied from Thomasons affidavit that he is indigent. Plaintiff's trust fund account balance as of March 28, 2022 was $543.93 (Doc. #3 ). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #3 ). Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee no later than May 31, 2022. Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to comply with a court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/28/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. #2 ) is DENIED. The Court generally will not consider recruiting counsel for a pro se plaintiff until the Court conducts a preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). Given the early stage of the litigation, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for assistance of counsel, so the recruitment of counsel would be premature. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff's need for assistance of counsel... cannot be gauged."). If Plaintiff's Complaint survives Section 1915A review, and he encounters difficulties in self-representation as this case proceeds, he may refile his motion seeking recruitment of counsel. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/27/2022. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
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 22-834-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. 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 4/26/2022. (kare)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jeremy Thomason. (kare) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Jeremy Thomason. (kare) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Jeremy Thomason.(kare) |
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.
