Townsend v. Merriman et al
| Joeseph Townsend |
| Mr. Benard, Mr. Brasher, Mr. Merriman and Darren Galloway |
| 3:2024cv02319 |
| October 15, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| East St. Louis Office |
| Reona J Daly |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT: COUNT 7 is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim against Defendants MERRIMAN, BRASHER, BENARD, and GALLOWAY. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a First Amended Complaint to re-plead this claim on or before December 26, 2024. He is WARNED that failure to do so by this deadline and consistent with the attached Order will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form, along with this Order. Amended Pleadings due by 12/26/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 11/26/2024. (jsy)
|
| Filing 11 Initial Prisoner Filing Fee: $ 1.69 received, receipt number 12619 (clw) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE TERMINATING JUDGE ASSIGNMENT: Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 259, and a request for reassignment having been received, this case, in its entirety, is hereby reassigned to Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly for further proceedings. Judge Staci M. Yandle no longer assigned to the case. All future documents must bear case number 24-cv-2319-RJD. (mamo)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED. |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Counsel (Doc. #7 ) 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 11/18/2024. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") (Doc. #6 ). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.69. 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 Pinckneyville Correctional Center upon entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 11/1/2024. (mamo)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Recruitment of Counsel by Joeseph Townsend. (jaj) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Joeseph Townsend. (jaj) |
| Filing 5 CONSENT/NON-CONSENT TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE - sealed pending receipt from all parties. (jaj) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: On 10/15/2024, this case was severed from Townsend v. Vaughn, et al., SDIL Case No. 24-cv-1758-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 $350.00 filing fee in this case. 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 November 19, 2024, to advise the Court in writing whether he wishes to proceed with this lawsuit. If he chooses to go forward, the Court will assess an initial partial filing fee (if appropriate) and 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. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 10/15/2024. (mamo)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 3 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 10/15/2024. Consent due by 11/5/2024 (mamo) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Joeseph Townsend.(mamo) |
|
Filing 1
Memorandum and Order Severing case number 24-1758-DWD. Signed by Judge David W. Dugan on 10/15/2024. (mamo)
|
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.
