Williamson v. Barry
| Clarence R. Williamson, III and Mark Howard |
| Officer Barry |
| 3:2022cv00898 |
| May 3, 2022 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| David W Dugan |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss #9 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's original Motion to Dismiss #7 , contained suggestions that he felt pressured or forced to dismiss based on interactions at the prison, so the Court directed him to clarify his intentions. In the present motion, Plaintiff mentions a tactical team shakedown by a non-party to this lawsuit, and he renews his motion for voluntary dismissal. The allegations about the shakedown are not related to this case, which contains a single claim about harassment by Defendant Barry. Plaintiff's renewed request will be granted and his case will be DISMISSED without prejudice. The pending Motion for Service of Process at Government #3 Expense is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/21/2022. (kgk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Voluntarily Dismiss by Clarence R. Williamson, III. (kare) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER re 7 Motion to Dismiss. On May 3, 2022, the claims in this case were severed from Plaintiff's Complaint in Williamson v. Thompson, et al., Case No. 22-cv-225-DWD. Plaintiff was given a deadline of 6/7/2022 to determine if he wanted to proceed with the severed claims or dismiss the case voluntarily. On May 27, 2022, he filed the pending motion to dismiss. Although labeled a motion to "voluntarily" dismiss, Plaintiff states that he has been obstructed from accessing the law library, has been harassed by Defendants, and unable to review the cases cited by the Court in its Orders. He also indicates that he is being forced to "voluntarily" dismiss his severed case. It does not appear that Plaintiff has made an informed decision as to whether he wants to proceed with these claims. Accordingly, the Court will find the motion moot and will grant Plaintiff additional time to allow him to consider whether he wishes to proceed with this case. Plaintiff is reminded that he does not need to present any complex legal theories to the Court, he need only prepare pleadings that clearly state the relevant facts and occurrences. Plaintiff now has until June 17, 2022 to inform the Court whether he wishes to proceed with his claims or voluntarily dismiss the case.. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 5/31/2022. (kgk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Voluntarily Dismiss by Clarence R. Williamson, III. (kare) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE: Clarence R. Williamson, III was directed to file the attached form regarding consenting or declining to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. The time for doing so has now passed, and the Court has not received the form. As required by Administrative Order No. 257, Clarence R. Williamson, III shall return the form within 7 days or face possible sanctions. Consent due by 5/31/2022 (kare) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER: On 5/3/2022, this case was severed from Williamson v. Thompson, et al, SDIL Case No. 22-cv-225-DWD. 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 $402.00 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 June 7, 2022 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 $402.00 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 6/7/2022). Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 5/3/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 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 5/3/2022. Consent due by 5/24/2022 (jaj) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Service of Process at Government Expense by Clarence R. Williamson, III. (jaj) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Officer Barry filed by Clarence R. Williamson, III. (Attachments: #1 Letter to the Court)(jaj) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Severing case 22-225-DWD. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 5/2/2022. (jaj)
|
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.
