Payton v. Mayor et al
| Walter Payton |
| Mayor, Police Chief, Detectives, Parole Department, L. Martin, Parole Officer Supervisors, Prisoner Review Board, Richard Watson, Correctional Staff, State of Illinois, Director, Illinois Secretary of State, Corrections Staff and States Attorney |
| 3:2022cv00949 |
| May 5, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Stephen P McGlynn |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff was ordered to affirmatively notify the Court whether he wanted to proceed with this case or voluntarily dismiss it (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was also warned that his failure to respond would result in this case being dismissed without prejudice (Doc. 7). The deadline for responding has expired and the Court has not heard from Plaintiff. Consequently, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to follow an order of the Court and failure to prosecute. The record shall reflect that the filing fee is satisfied and no payments shall be collected from Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 6/27/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 8 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Document 7 sent to Walter Payton. (jaj) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: On 5/5/2022, this case was severed from Belk, et al v. Mayor, et al, SDIL Case No. 21-cv-1253- 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 the $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 9, 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. Because the original Complaint was not specific to Plaintiff's individual claims, Plaintiff may want to file an Amended Complaint. He has until June 9, 2022 to do so; otherwise the Court will review the current 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 6/9/2022). Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 5/5/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 6 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (jaj) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Walter Payton. (jaj) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Walter Payton. (jaj) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Walter Payton. (jaj) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Walter Payton.(jaj) |
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case 21-1253-NJR. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/4/2022. (jaj)
|
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.
