Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 11 of
11
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 RegisterActionDate "2017-06-07" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 6/7/2017. Plaintiff files 130 asserting that the Court has erred in identifying 91 as a third attempt to amend his complaint. Plaintiff claims that he has filed only one amended complaint. The Court has reviewed the docket and notes that on 12/31/15, Plaintiff filed a 95-page complaint in the Northern District docketed as 1 . The case was subsequently transferred to the Central District where the complaint was refiled and docketed as 9 . On 1/25/16, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Clerk "rearrange" the complaint which allegedly contained extraneous attachments. The Court denied the request to rearrange, struck the complaint and gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On 2/22/16, Plaintiff filed 15 , a 98-page (with attachments) [first] amended complaint. On 2/23/16, he moved to strike 15 , in place of a newly filed 34-page proposed amended complaint 17 . The Court allowed this request, making 17 Plaintiff's second amended complaint. On 6/21/16, Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to amend 27 which was granted on June 24, 2016 and was Plaintiff's third amended complaint. On February 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to amend 91 which the Court identified as a third amended complaint, when it was actually the fourth. Plaintiff's 130 , asks for that the Court issue an order recognizing that 1 and 9 were duplicates. He also asserts that his amended complaint 17 was a duplicate of 1 and 9 and should not count as an amended complaint so that 91 would be only his second attempt to amend. The Court disagrees. It had denied Plaintiff's request that the Clerk "rearrange" his complaint and struck the complaint with leave to file an amendment. While 17 might well be a duplicate of 9 , Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend and this is what he filed. As the Court allowed the first amendment 15 , the second amendment 17 , and the third amendment 27 , Plaintiff's 91 was actually an attempt to file a fourth amended complaint. 130 is GRANTED to the extent that 1 and 9 are recognized as the same filing and given a different docket number after the case was transferred. 130 is otherwise DENIED. (DS, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de0 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de113 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de156 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de17 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de19 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de35 @default.
- ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de165 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:16-cv-01024_de5 @default.