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.

Zafar Sheikh v. Marc Lichtman

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois


May 9, 2012

ZAFAR SHEIKH
v.
MARC LICHTMAN, ET AL.

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants' motion to dismiss or for clarification [54] is entered and continued. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Clerk of the Court is instructed not to file Plaintiff's response on the docket, or to strike Plaintiff's response if it has already been filed on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) (stating that the court may on its own "strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter"). Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to respond to the instant motion without including the scandalous and immaterial facts alleged in his previous response. Plaintiff's should file an appropriate response to the instant motion by May 24, 2012, and City Defendants should file their reply on May 31, 2012. The court will issue its ruling on the motion by mail. All dates previously set in the case remain unchanged.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

City Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss or for clarification. In their motion, City Defendants indicate that their original motion to dismiss was intended to cover all claims brought by Plaintiff, and that they failed to specifically address certain claims brought by Plaintiff due to the length and organization of Plaintiff's pro se complaint. Based on City Defendant's representations, the court will consider the instant motion. The court notes that Plaintiff delivered a courtesy copy of his response to the instant motion to chambers on May 8, 2012. Plaintiff's response contained scandalous allegations regarding an individual who is not a party to this action. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the clerk of the court is instructed not to file Plaintiff's response on the docket, or to strike Plaintiff's response if it has already been filed on the docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1) (stating that the court may on its own "strike from a pleading . . . any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter"). Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to respond to the instant motion without including the scandalous and immaterial facts alleged in his previous response. Plaintiff's should file an appropriate response to the instant motion by May 24, 2012, and City Defendants should file their reply on May 31, 2012. The court will issue its ruling on the motion by mail. All dates previously set in the case remain unchanged.

20120509

© 1992-2012 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.