Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Gillespie v. Cox

June 20, 2006

BRIAN GILLESPIE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES G. COX, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, MAJOR ROSE, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED OFFICIALS AT THE LOGAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, IN THEIR OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge

ORDER

The Court now considers Plaintiff Brian Gillespie's Motion to Transfer Venue and his Motion to Strike Defendant James G. Cox's Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue.

FACTS

Plaintiff Brian Gillespie is a Champaign, Illinois resident. Gillespie filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the United States District Court for the Central District's Urbana Division alleging he was injured as a result of the Defendants's negligence.

Gillespie and the majority of his witnesses reside in Champaign, Illinois, and located in the Court's Urbana Division. However, the facts giving rise to Gillespie's claims occurred at the Logan Correctional Center, a penal institution located in Lincoln, Illinois. Lincoln is part of the Central District's Springfield Division.

Gillespie sued Defendants James G. Cox, Major Rose, and various unnamed officials at Logan Correctional Center. Neither Cox nor Rose reside in the Central District.

On March 3, 2006, U.S. District Judge Harold Baker sua sponte transferred this case to the Springfield Division because the Logan Correctional Center is located here. Gillespie objects to the transfer and moves to have the case transferred back to Urbana Division, alleging that Urbana is the appropriate venue.

The Defendants failed to timely respond to Gillespie's motion.

When Defendant Cox finally filed a response asking the Court to deny Gillespie's motion, the response cited no legal authority to support the requested denial. Thus, Gillespie moves the Court to strike Cox's response.

ANALYSIS

This District Court has Local Rules governing the form and content of responses. Among other things, the rules require that:

Any party opposing [a] motion shall file a response . . . [which includes] a brief statement of specific points or propositions of law and supporting authorities upon which the responding party relies . . .

See Local Rule 7.1(B)(1).

Defendant Cox's response opposed Gillespie's motion to transfer, contending that the facts of the case showed that the Springfield Division was an appropriate venue. Cox's response clearly contested a legal issue, but it failed to offer any legal support for his contention. Thus, Cox's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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