Mayfield v. Loos et al
| Calvin Mayfield |
| Rose Loos, Cathy McClure, Oakley, Ransom, Bell, Shannon Denman, Rolla, Saddler, Mitchell, J. Saddler and David Mitchell |
| 3:2023cv01642 |
| May 15, 2023 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| David W Dugan |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 21, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Cathy McClure waiver sent on 6/14/2023, answer due 8/14/2023. (tjk) |
| Filing 16 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction by Calvin Mayfield. (kare) |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by Calvin Mayfield. (kare) |
Filing 14
ORDER: Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 12) the Court's Order of Initial Review (Doc. 8). He argues that the Court erred by dismissing his retaliation claim against Defendant Oakley. Altering or amending a judgment under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 59(e) is permissible when there is newly discovered evidence or there has been a manifest error of law or of fact. Harrington v. City of Chi., 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)). In support of his motion, Plaintiff offers additional factual allegations about the events that transpired, including an alleged statement that Oakley made to him about his confiscated property on or around December 23, 2022. A motion to reconsider is not the appropriate way to present additional factual allegations that were known to Plaintiff at the time he filed his complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 12) is DENIED. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/21/2023. (kgk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 13 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed Rose Loos waiver sent on 6/14/2023, answer due 8/14/2023. (tjk) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Reconsideration re #8 Order for Service of Process by Calvin Mayfield. (jlrr) |
| Filing 11 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed David Mitchell waiver sent on 6/14/2023, answer due 8/14/2023. (tjk) |
| Filing 10 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to Loos, McClure, Denman and Mitchell on 6/14/2023. Waiver of Service due by 7/14/2023. (tjk) |
|
Filing 9
HIPAA Qualified Protective Order. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/14/2023. (jaj)
|
|
Filing 8
Order for Service of Process: As explained in this Order, Plaintiff may proceed on Claim 1 against Defendants Rose Loos, Cathy McClure, Shannon Denman, and Warden David Mitchell (individual and official capacity for injunctive relief). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve these parties consistent with this Order. By contrast, Claims 2 and 3 fail to state a claim, and there are no valid claims against Defendants Oakley, Ransom, Bell, Rolla and J. Saddler. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE Oakley, Ransom, Bell, Rolla and J. Saddler. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter the standard HIPAA protective order. Once Defendants Loos, McClure, Denman and Mitchell return executed waivers of service, they must respond to the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3) within 14 days. Ruling on the injunctive relief will be deferred until Defendants file a written response. The Defendants need only respond to the injunctive relief that relates to mental health care. Plaintiff's Motion for Summons (Doc. 2) is GRANTED in part, the Court will begin with waivers of service, and if that does not succeed it will then utilize formal summons. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 6/13/2023. (kgk)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER: The Court has received your payment of the filing fee. Now 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. 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 David W. Dugan on 5/26/2023. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing fee: $ 402.00, receipt number 3684 (clw) |
| Filing 6 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare) |
| 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. 347, 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 5/15/2023. Consent due by 6/5/2023 (kare) |
|
Filing 4
NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your Complaint. Your case number is 23-1642-DWD. Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, you are ORDERED to submit the $402.00 filing fee or a motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. If you file a motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, the Court must review your trust fund account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of this action. Thus, you must have the Trust Fund Officer at your facility complete the attached certification and provide a copy of your trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent). If you fail to pay the filing fee or submit the motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee by the deadline, the case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Sperow v. Melvin, 153 F.3d 780, 781 (7th Cir. 1998). 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 David W. Dugan on 5/15/2023. (kare)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction by Calvin Mayfield. (kare) Modified on 5/16/2023 (jaj). |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Summons by Calvin Mayfield. (kare) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Calvin Mayfield. (Attachments: #1 Declaration in Support, #2 Memorandum Of Law in Support, #3 Exhibits)(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.
