Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de16> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de16 RegisterActionDate "2017-09-25" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de16 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Judge Colin Stirling Bruce on 9/25/2017. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint 12 is DENIED. Plaintiff has filed a proposed Amended Complaint, but it is unclear what the purpose of his proposed Amended Complaint is. A review of his proposed Amended Complaint reveals that it states no new legal claims against Defendant F342DC6. To the extent that Plaintiff wants to amend his Complaint to add new facts or new occurrences of alleged retaliation by F342DC6, such an amendment is unnecessary because the Court has already determined that Plaintiff's Complaint states a retaliation claim against F342DC6. Plaintiff also identifies others who allegedly retaliated against him, but it is unclear whether Plaintiff wants to add these individuals as party Defendants. If Plaintiff desires to add any new Defendants or any new claims, he should file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint in which he identifies the individuals whom he wants to add and the claims that he wants to add. In addition, Plaintiff should attach a complete, proposed amended complaint that, if granted leave to file, will completely replace his original Complaint and will stand on its own without reference to or reliance upon his Original Complaint. Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., 354 F.3d 632, 638 n.1 (7th Cir. 2004). (DS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/25/2017)" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de16 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de16 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de16 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;1:17-cv-01363_de14 @default.