Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Evans

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


March 24, 2006

LEE HOLDEN PARKER, #A-50207, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN EVANS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stiehl, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Several motions are pending in this action.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC.5)

In this motion, Plaintiff seeks financial sanctions against Defendant Evans for actions Evans has undertaken since the filing of this lawsuit. Although the instant motion rambles considerably, it seems that Plaintiff believes that some of his property was confiscated due to his filing of the instant lawsuit. Furthermore, he claims that he was unjustifiably moved to the segregation unit, and Plaintiff was subjected to disciplinary sanctions for an incident that he claims to be innocent of.

Each of these allegations is, in itself, a separate legal claim. It appears that Plaintiff is attempting to receive damages from Evans for these incidents; such a remedy is only available to him by prevailing in a separately-filed lawsuit over these claims. Accordingly, the motion for sanctions is DENIED.

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC.6)

Plaintiff's original complaint (Doc. 1) was filed against John Evans and Colleen Rennison.

The allegations in the four-page complaint can be distilled to one simple claim: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have interfered with his access to the courts by refusing to make copies of lawsuits in excess of 15 pages, thus thwarting his efforts to proceed with an action against 46 individuals in the Illinois Department of Corrections. In the instant motion to amend, he seeks to add two additional defendants, Lt. Williams and Scott Hill. The allegations against Evans and Rennison are essentially the same as those contained in the original complaint; the new claims against Williams and Hill appear to be related. Accordingly, the instant motion is GRANTED.

The text of this motion actually is the proposed amended complaint. Therefore, the Court and all parties shall now construe this motion as Plaintiff's amended complaint.

MOTIONS FOR SERVICE (DOCS.7,9)

The Court has just granted Plaintiff's request to file a an amended complaint. Although the amended complaint is relatively brief at just 11 pages, Plaintiff has attached over 50 pages of exhibits to the amended complaint. Before the Court directs service, the Court must complete a preliminary review of the amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Once that review is completed, service will be directed upon such defendants as the Court deems necessary. Accordingly, these motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM D. STIEHL DISTRICT JUDGE

20060324

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.