Carter v. Garcia et al
| Jonathan Terrell Carter |
| Brenden Garcia, Aaron Taylor, C/O Milford, C/O Williams, Jane Doe 1 and A. Desai |
| 3:2025cv01601 |
| August 18, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Staci M Yandle |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/29/2025. (jsy) |
Filing 10
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a #9 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Case. He also asks the Court how long he must wait to exhaust each grievance or appeal before filing suit. This Court cannot provide him with legal advice. Plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal of this suit "effected the immediate dismissal of the suit." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587 (7th Cir. 2011); Smith v. Potter, 513 F.3d 781, 782 (7th Cir. 2008). No additional action remains for the undersigned Judge to take. The Clerk's Office is DIRECTED to make no efforts to collect the filing fee for this action at this time. This case is considered DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing as a separate suit after Plaintiff is satisfied that he exhausted all available administrative remedies for his claims under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Plaintiff should be aware that a 2-year statute of limitations governs his claims. All pending motions (Docs. 2, 3, and 9) are TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/29/2025. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint by Jonathan Terrell Carter. (jaj) |
| Filing 8 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement. (mado) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis ("IFP") in this case (Doc. #2 ) but failed to provide the necessary prisoner trust fund account information as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide the Clerk of Court with the attached Certification completed by the Trust Fund Officer at his facility and a copy of his trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the period February 18, 2025, thru August 18, 2025, no later than October 6, 2025. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this case for failure to comply with an order of the Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). See generally Ladien v. Astrachan, 128 F.3d 1051 (7th Cir. 1997); Johnson v. Kamminga, 34 F.3d 466 (7th Cir. 1994). The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order and the Certification form to the Trust Fund Officer at Menard Correctional Center. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/22/2025. (mado)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER: Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on August 18, 2025, for constitutional deprivations that allegedly occurred in 2024-25. In the #1 Complaint, Plaintiff states that he filed suit while he was still in the process of exhausting his administrative remedies for the claims herein. (Doc. 1, p. 6) (Plaintiff states, "I'm currently waiting on K4-0125-0337 to be returned from Springfield.... Other grievances pertaining to issue are currently being exhausted by the institution."). The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a prisoner-plaintiff to exhaust all available administrative remedies BEFORE bringing suit in federal court. 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). A plaintiff cannot file suit first and exhaust later. Id. Although failure to exhaust is usually an affirmative defense, a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and is subject to dismissal when it is clear that a plaintiff has not exhausted his available remedies. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 (2007); Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009-10 (7th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he existence of a valid affirmative defense is so plain from the face of the complaint that suit can be regarded as frivolous."). In light of this, Plaintiff should decide whether to proceed with his #1 Complaint in this case or withdraw it and file a new suit after exhausting all available remedies (but before the 2-year statute of limitations for his claim(s) expires). Plaintiff shall ADVISE the Court, in writing, of his decision to proceed with the #1 Complaint herein or file a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss this action without prejudice no later than SEPTEMBER 8, 2025. Failure to respond to this Order may result in dismissal of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/19/2025. (jsy) THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Action due by 9/8/2025. (eab) |
|
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 25-1601-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 8/18/2025. (jaj)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. 408, 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 8/18/2025. Consent due by 9/8/2025 (jaj) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Order to Receive Six Month Ledge by Jonathan Terrell Carter. (jaj) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jonathan Terrell Carter. (jaj) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Jonathan Terrell Carter.(jaj) |
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.
