Ruiz v. Doe et al
Plaintiff: Abel Ruiz
Defendant: John Doe, C/O Fenton, C/O Moore and Warden of Menard Correctional Center
Case Number: 3:2022cv01382
Filed: June 28, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Staci M Yandle
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 6, 2022 Filing 18 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by C/O Fenton, Warden of Menard Correctional Center. (Barnett, Tara)
September 2, 2022 Filing 17 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara Marie Barnett on behalf of C/O Fenton (Barnett, Tara)
August 19, 2022 Filing 16 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed C/O Fenton waiver sent on 7/8/2022, answer due 9/6/2022. (kare)
August 12, 2022 Filing 15 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed C/O Moore waiver sent on 7/8/2022, answer due 9/6/2022. (jaj)
August 8, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER GRANTING #13 Motion for Copies. As a one-time courtesy, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet and Documents 1 and 6. As a general rule, the Clerk will mail paper copies of any document only after receiving prepayment of the required fee ($.50 per page). All further requests for documents should be made in writing to the Clerk of Court by referring to the case number and the document number and submitting the required prepayment. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/8/2022. (ksp)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
August 8, 2022 Filing 13 MOTION Requesting Documents by Abel Ruiz. (jaj)
July 26, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Tara Marie Barnett on behalf of Warden of Menard Correctional Center (Barnett, Tara)
July 11, 2022 Filing 11 NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT/REASSIGNMENT: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 257, this case will remain with the assigned District Judge Staci M. Yandle. This Notice does not alter any prior referrals of motions or matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1-3). (kare)
July 11, 2022 Filing 10 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare)
July 11, 2022 Filing 9 Waiver of Service Returned Unexecuted as to Moore and Fenton. (tjk)
July 11, 2022 Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Warden of Menard Correctional Center waiver sent on 7/8/2022, answer due 9/6/2022. (tjk)
July 11, 2022 Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 23.78 received, receipt number 44625014780. (kdw)
July 8, 2022 Filing 7 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Moore, Fenton, and the Warden of Menard Correctional Center on 7/8/2022. Waiver of Service due by 8/8/2022. (tjk)
July 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 Order for Service of Process upon Moore, Fenton, and the Warden of Menard Correctional Center (official capacity only). Following preliminary review under 1915A the following claims will proceed: Count 1 against Moore; Counts 3 and 5 against Fenton; and Count 7 against John Doe Placement Officer. Counts 2, 4, and 6 are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to add the Warden of Menard Correctional Center, in his/her official capacity, as a defendant for purposes of responding to discovery aimed at identifying the Doe defendant. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/7/2022. (ksp)
July 5, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. #2 ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $23.78. The agency having custody of Plaintiff is directed to forward the initial partial filing fee from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of Court upon receipt of this Order. Plaintiff shall make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's prison trust fund account (including all deposits to the inmate account from any source) until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. The agency having custody of Plaintiff shall forward payments from Plaintiff's account to the Clerk of this Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the $350.00 filing fee is paid.In addition, Plaintiff shall note that the filing fees for multiple cases cumulate. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 436 (7th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000); Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000). A prisoner who files one suit must remit 20% of his monthly income to the Clerk of the Court until his fees have been paid; a prisoner who files a second suit or an appeal must remit 40%; and so on. Newlin, 123 F.3d at 436. "Five suits or appeals mean that the prisoner's entire monthly income must be turned over to the court until the fees have been paid." Id. Payments shall be mailed to: Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois 62201. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to the Trust Fund Officer at the Menard Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 7/5/2022. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
June 28, 2022 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 06/28/2022. Consent due by 7/19/2022 (kare)
June 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 22-1382-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 6/28/2022. (kare)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
June 28, 2022 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Abel Ruiz. (kare)
June 28, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Abel Ruiz.(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 this case: Ruiz v. Doe et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Abel Ruiz
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Doe
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: C/O Fenton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: C/O Moore
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Warden of Menard Correctional Center
Represented By: Tara Marie Barnett
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?