Croom v. Doe #6 et al
| Christopher Croom |
| John Doe #6, John Doe #7, John Doe #8, John Doe #9 and Warden of Menard Correctional Center |
| 3:2022cv01244 |
| June 10, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Stephen P McGlynn |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER: Now that Plaintiff has opted to proceed with this action, the Court will review the complaint to identify claims and defendants and to dismiss any legally insufficient claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A. The Court will conduct this review within the next 60 days. 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. Therefore, Plaintiff need not submit any evidence, argument, motions, or documents. If Plaintiff does not receive a Merit Review Order within the next 60 days, he may file a motion requesting the status of the case. The Court will not consider a status motion at any time prior to the 60-day deadline. If Plaintiff has filed a motion for recruitment of counsel, it will not be considered until the complaint is reviewed. In addition, any motion for recruitment of counsel must include evidence of Plaintiff's own efforts to find counsel such as a list of attorneys contacted and copies of letters sent or received. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2007). 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 Stephen P. McGlynn on 7/19/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing fee: $ 402.00, receipt number 34625113503 (adh)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #8 ). 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 Croom's affidavit that he is indigent. Plaintiff's trust fund account balance as of June 8, 2022 was $501.88 (Doc. #8 ). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #8 ). Plaintiff shall pay the $402.00 filing fee no later than July 29, 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 Stephen P. McGlynn on 6/29/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Christopher Croom. (jaj)
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT/REASSIGNMENT: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257, this case will remain with the assigned District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn. This Notice does not alter any prior referrals of motions or matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1-3). (kare)
|
|
Filing 6
CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: On 6/10/2022, this case was severed from Croom v. Wills, et al, SDIL Case No. 21-cv-896-SMY. 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 July 15, 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 7/15/2022). Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 6/10/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE FROM CLERK Instructing Croom 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 Croom on 6/10/2022. Consent due by 7/1/2022 (tjk)
|
|
Filing 3
Merit Review Order. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 2/23/2022. (tjk)
|
|
Filing 2
COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Christopher Croom.(tjk)
|
|
Filing 1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER severing case number 21-896-SMY. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 6/2/2022. (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
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.
