Johnson v. Gomez et al
| Maurice S. Johnson |
| David Gomez, Graves, Stateville Correctional Center, Dee Dee Brookhart, C.O Jennings, Puckett, Ochs, Givings, Tye, Purdue, Lawrence Correctional Center, Sherry Benton, Travis Bayler, Rob Jeffries, Anthony Willis, Menard C.C., Ryan A. Kilduff, Christina Allsup and Rob Jeffreys |
| 3:2022cv00860 |
| April 28, 2022 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Nancy J Rosenstengel |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 NOTICE FROM CLERK Instructing Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff on 04/28/2022. Consent due by 5/19/2022 (kare) |
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 22-860-NJR. 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 Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 4/28/2022. (kare)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Maurice S. Johnson. (kare) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Maurice S. Johnson. (kare) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Maurice S. Johnson.(kare) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
