Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de20> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de20 RegisterActionDate "2017-12-21" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de20 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 12/21/2017. Plaintiff has filed a motion to correct the merit review order. 15 . On November 28, 2017, the Court found Plaintiff alleged members of an extraction team: 1) either used excessive force or failed to intervene to stop the use of excessive force; 2) left Plaintiff in handcuffs and denied him an opportunity to remove mace; and 3) walked Plaintiff through the housing unit with his buttocks exposed. See November 28, 2017 Merit Review Order. Plaintiff says he walked 200 feet, not 20 yards in leg irons, and Plaintiff says he was not left in handcuffs for 24 hours. Plaintiff asks only to clarify the factual basis for his allegations, not the pending claims. Plaintiff should clarify the specific details during the discovery process. Since the claims remain the same, the motion to amend is denied. 15 . In addition, the Court noted in its merit review order that despite Plaintiffs claims, it was not clear he had fully exhausted his administrative remedies. See November 28, 2017 Merit Review Order, p. 4-5. Plaintiff filed a grievance on February 11, 2016, received a counselors response on March 22, 2016, and the Warden denied the grievance on March 24, 2016. Plaintiff chose to file his complaint less than three months later on June 9, 2017. See November 28, 2017 Merit Review Order. In his motion to correct the merit review order, Plaintiff now says the ARB is required to provide a response in six months. However, he did not receive a response until well over a year later on October 17, 2017. Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the ARB response and given the time frame, its not clear if the response concerned the claims before this Court. Nonetheless, if Plaintiff filed his complaint before allowing the ARB even the opportunity to respond, then he did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies BEFORE filing this complaint. See Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282 (7th Cir.2005) (affirming the dismissal of a prisoner's complaint because the prisoner did not complete the grievance appeals process before filing his complaint). This case will now be set for telephone hearing pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff believes he did not complete the grievance procedure, he may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss his case before the hearing, and the Court will dismiss the case without prejudice and waive the filing fee.(RK, ilcd) (Entered: 12/21/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de20 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de20 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de20 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01264_de19 @default.