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.

Norfleet v. Illinois Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

June 13, 2017

MARC NORFLEET, Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PATRICK KEANE, GLADYSE C. TAYLOR, and SHERRY BENTON, Defendants.

          ORDER

          DONALD G. WILKERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Now before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff, Marc Norfleet:

1. Revised Version of Motion for Leave to File Exhibit A Amended Complaint (Doc. 87);
2. Renewed Motion for Replacement Counsel (Doc. 96);
3. Second Renewed Motion for Replacement Counsel and Needed “Class” Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 100);
4. Motion for Certification of Class and Objection to June 16, 2017 Deposition (Doc. 101); and
5. Motion for Status (Doc. 102).

         The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's filings, and any responses thereto, and sets forth its ruling on each motion below.

         Revised Version of Motion for Leave to File Exhibit A Amended Complaint (Doc. 87)

         Plaintiff Marc Norfleet is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). The Court conducted a threshold review of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and allowed Plaintiff to proceed on the following claims:

Count One: Defendants Patrick Keane, Sherry Benton, and Gladyse Taylor subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they knowingly and with deliberate indifference forced Plaintiff to live in an overcrowded cell; and
Count Two: Defendant Illinois Department of Corrections intentionally forced Plaintiff to live in an overcrowded cell in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

         Following the filing of his complaint Plaintiff filed a number of motions to amend that were denied without prejudice when Plaintiff was appointed counsel, Attorney Joshua Worthington, to represent him in this case (see Doc. 76). Soon after counsel's appearance on behalf of Plaintiff, he sought to withdraw (at Plaintiff's behest). After discussing the issue with counsel, the Court granted Attorney Worthington's motion and Plaintiff was advised that he was proceeding pro se (Doc. 82). On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his “Revised Version Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Exhibit A Amended Complaint”, which the Court construes as a motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 87). Although his motion was filed well after the deadline, the Court will consider the motion on the merits in light of Plaintiff's timely filed motions to amend that were denied without prejudice.

         In his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to convert this action to a class action. Although not entirely clear, it appears Plaintiff is attempting to bring class ...


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.