Randall v. Lacey
Kimothy Randall |
Lacey |
3:2023cv03676 |
November 14, 2023 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
East St. Louis Office |
Stephen P McGlynn |
Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 7 ORDER granting #6 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has informed the Court that he does not wish to proceed with this case. Consequently, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This dismissal shall not count as a "strike" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and 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 12/12/2023. (jrj)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss by Kimothy Randall. (kare) |
Filing 5 ORDER: On 11/14/2023, this case was severed from Randall v. IDOC, et al, SDIL Case No. 23-cv-2502-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 12/19/2023 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 12/19/2023.). Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 11/14/2023. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
Filing 4 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Kimothy Randall. (kare) |
Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kimothy Randall. (kare) |
Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Lacey, filed by Kimothy Randall.(kare) |
Filing 1 Memorandum and Order Severing case number 23-2502-DWD. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 11/13/2023. (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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Randall v. Lacey | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Kimothy Randall | |
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: Lacey | |
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.