Wilson v. Hughes et al
| Jaber Wilson |
| M. Rose, Anthony D. Wills, Anthony B. Jones, Latoya Hughes, Joshua Schoenbeck and Lt. Lenear |
| 3:2024cv02196 |
| September 19, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Staci M Yandle |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 23, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
ORDER DENYING #17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff complains of constitutional deprivations by undisclosed persons and seeks sweeping relief that includes an Order for: (a) his removal from indefinite administrative detention; (b) implementation of 10 hours of structured and 10 hours of unstructured out-of-cell time per week while in administrative detention; (c) law library access; (d) a case plan and program assignment; (e) access to school; (f) permission to walk to school; (g) twice-weekly access to mental health group (4 hours total); (h) twice-weekly access to religious services; (i) regular welfare checks by staff; (j) phone access; (k) contact visits; and (l) prohibition against staff retaliation. Plaintiff names no defendants in connection with these alleged deprivations, and his requested relief exceeds the scope of this lawsuit and the court's authority to issue a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. As such, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/6/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER GRANTING #16 Motion to Inform the Court that Plaintiff replaced his unsigned Consent/Non-Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form with a signed version. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/6/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER: A notice of appeal does not divest the District Court of jurisdiction over aspects of this case unrelated to Plaintiff's appeal of the 6 Order Denying #3 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel. It simply "divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, (1982). The Court deems it appropriate to move forward with the underlying case on the merits and address issues unrelated to the 6 Order on appeal. See Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 758 F. App'x 530, 532533 (7th Cir. 2019). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/6/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER DENYING 13 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff filed a #1 Complaint and #3 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel on September 19, 2024, and the Court entered an 6 Order Denying #3 Motion for Recruitment of Counsel on September 20, 2024. The Court explained that it lacked information necessary to assess the factual and legal difficulty of the claims, given the early stage of the case and the fact that the Complaint was not yet screened under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Plaintiff now challenges this decision in a #10 Notice of Appeal and 13 Motion for Reconsideration both filed on October 3, 2024. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal of the Order at Doc. 6. However, the district court retains authority to deny the pending 13 Motion for Reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2). Upon review of this matter, the Court still finds that Plaintiff's early request for court-recruited counsel was properly denied because the Court lacked information necessary to evaluate the difficulty of this case against Plaintiff's demonstrated ability to litigate it pro se in its early stages; the denial was WITHOUT PREJUDICE so that Plaintiff could renew his request for counsel at any time by filing a new motion in the pending district court action and filing, or resubmitting, proof of his efforts to find counsel. Because this Court remains satisfied that this decision is legally and factually sound, the 13 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/1/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order by Jaber Wilson. (kare) |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Inform by Jaber Wilson. (kare) |
| Filing 15 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE STRIKING ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOCUMENTS striking #9 Consent/Non-Consent to US Magistrate Judge. The Clerks Office received your Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form. The form is incomplete. Your signature was absent from the form. Therefore, the pleading is STRICKEN. Please refile completed document. Another form is attached to this notice. Please note that, pursuant to the Courts prior Order, the deadline for submitting this form is 10/10/2024. (kare) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: Consent due by 10/10/2024 (kare) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Reconsideration with #10 Notice of Appeal by Jaber Wilson. (kare) |
| Filing 12 Circuit Rule 10 Letter. (tkm) |
| Filing 11 Transmission of Short Record to US Court of Appeals re #10 Notice of Appeal (tkm) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 6 Order on Motion for Recruitment of Counsel,,,,, by Jaber Wilson. (kare) |
| Filing 9 STRICKEN - CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (kare) (Main Document 9 replaced on 10/4/2024) (jlh). Modified on 10/4/2024 (kare). |
| Filing 8 Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 34.09 received, receipt number 11687 (djw) |
|
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 $34.09. 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 9/20/2024. (mamo)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. #3 ) is DENIED. The Court generally will not consider recruiting counsel for a pro se plaintiff until the Court conducts a preliminary review of the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner Complaints to filter out nonmeritorious claims. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). Given the early stage of the litigation, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the need for assistance of counsel, so the recruitment of counsel would be premature. See Kadamovas v. Stevens, 706 F.3d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[U]ntil the defendants respond to the complaint, the plaintiff's need for assistance of counsel... cannot be gauged."). If Plaintiff's Complaint survives Section 1915A review, and he encounters difficulties in self-representation as this case proceeds, he may refile his motion seeking recruitment of counsel. If he chooses to renew his request, he 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 Staci M. Yandle on 9/20/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE AND ORDER: The Court has received your complaint and your motion to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Your case number is 24-2196-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 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 Staci M. Yandle on 9/19/2024. (kare)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| 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. 386, 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 9/19/2024. Consent due by 10/10/2024 (kare) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Jaber Wilson. (kare) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jaber Wilson. (kare) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jaber Wilson.(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.
