Wilson v. Connor et al
| Anthony R. Wilson, III |
| Jeff C. Connor, Steve Ridings, Blake Sellers, Tom Schmidt, J. Carlyle and Paul Sarhage |
| 3:2024cv00518 |
| February 23, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| J Phil Gilbert |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 17, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
Order DENYING #3 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel without prejudice. When a pro se litigant submits a request for counsel, the Court first considers whether the indigent plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to secure counsel on his own, and, if so, whether the difficulty of the case, factually and legally, exceeds his capacity as a layperson to present it. Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has not demonstrated reasonable efforts to find counsel on his own; he admits making no efforts to call, email, or write attorneys seeking pro bono representation in this case. Moreover, until the Court screens the Complaint and filters out nonmeritorious claims under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a), it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for counsel. Therefore, recruitment of counsel at this early stage would be premature. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiffs need for assistance of counsel... cannot be gauged."). If Plaintiffs Complaint survives Section 1915A review, and he encounters difficulties in self-representation as this case proceeds, he may file a new motion. If he chooses to renew his request, Plaintiff should submit rejection letters from at least 3 attorneys to demonstrate that he has made reasonable efforts to obtain counsel on his own. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/17/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER DENYING #15 Motion for Copies of Filings. As a general rule, the District Clerk will mail paper copies of any document to a party only upon prepayment of the required fee. According to 28 U.S.C. 1914(b), "[t]he clerk shall collect from the parties such additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States." The Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees section (4) provides that a fee of $.50 per page shall apply for reproducing any record or paper. The CLERK is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet in this case. Should Plaintiff desire copies of any documents from the court file, he should request the document(s) by number and send the required prepayment. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/9/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 16
ORDER DENYING #14 Motion for Order to Produce Documents for Evidence by Anthony R. Wilson, III. Plaintiff's request to commence discovery is premature. The Complaint has not yet been screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If it survives preliminary review under Section 1915A, the lawsuit will be served on the defendant(s) who must answer. Thereafter, the Court will enter an Initial Scheduling Order with deadlines and instructions for litigation of this matter, including detailed instructions for the exchange of information about this case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/9/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 15 MOTION for Copies of Filings by Anthony R. Wilson, III. (kare) |
| Filing 14 MOTION for Order to Produce Documents for Evidence by Anthony R. Wilson, III. (kare) (Main Document 14 replaced on 4/8/2024) (jlh). |
| Filing 13 Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 39.50 received, receipt number 8610 (clw) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER DENYING #11 Motion for Justiciability and Fair Review of Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration of the 6 Order denying his request for pretrial release from county jail. As the Court already explained, the Court is not authorized to enter an order releasing him from custody under 42 U.S.C. 1983. If he wishes to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement in Jail, Plaintiff may file a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 or 2254. See Doc. 6. The Complaint is otherwise subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, and Plaintiff will be provided with a copy of the Court's screening order once this review is complete. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/19/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Justiciability and Fair Review for MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Anthony R. Wilson, III. (jaj) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER GRANTING #9 Motion for Status. Plaintiff's #1 Complaint was filed 2/23/2024 and is currently awaiting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Plaintiff will be provided with a copy of the Court's Merit Review Order once the Complaint is screened. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/8/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for status by Anthony R. Wilson, III. (kare) |
| Filing 8 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare) |
|
Filing 7
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 $39.50. 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 Madison County Jail upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 3/1/2024. (tjk)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction in the Complaint, see Doc. 1, p. 10. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for alleged violations his due process rights during his pretrial detention at Madison County Jail. In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that he was placed on lockdown when officers discovered a battery missing from another detainee's razor on or around January 28, 2024. Plaintiff asserts that he did not steal the battery, receive a disciplinary ticket, or attend a disciplinary hearing before he was disciplined. He remains on lockdown. Plaintiff now seeks a court order releasing him from the custody of the county jail and restoring all of his rights and privileges. But, Section 1983 does not authorize this Court to enter such an order. 42 U.S.C. 1983. The right way to contest ongoing state custody is by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 or 2254, not an action under 1983 seeking an injunction requiring his release from Jail. See Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois, 903 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973)). Plaintiff's request for release from the county jail is DENIED. The Court will enter a separate Merit Review Order once it screens the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 2/29/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| 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. 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 2/23/2024. Consent due by 3/15/2024 (kare) |
|
Filing 4
NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 24-518-JPG. 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 fourteen 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 J. Phil Gilbert on 2/23/2024. (kare)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Anthony R. Wilson, III. (kare) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Anthony R. Wilson, III. (kare) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Anthony R. Wilson, III.(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
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.
