Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 11 of
11
with 100 items per page.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 RegisterActionDate "2018-03-08" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 RegisterActionDescriptionText "TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 3/8/2018. Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. 34 The Court notes Plaintiff filed his original complaint in June of 2016. Since that time, Plaintiff has filed six motions asking to either amend or clarifying his claims. 7 , 8 , 16 , 21 , 28 , 29 . On March 23, 2017, the Court noted it was "abundantly clear" neither Rushville Supervisor 2D66B3F nor E466469 was directly involved in the alleged use of excessive force. March 23, 2017 Order, p. 5. Nonetheless, if Plaintiff believed he could state a basis for an official capacity claim, the Court allowed him one final opportunity to file an amended complaint on or before February 20, 2018. Instead, Plaintiff filed another motion for additional time due to his segregation status. The Court noted Plaintiff had first sought to add claims against E466469 and 2D66B3F more than seven months ago, and the Court had repeatedly explained the deficiencies in his filing. Plaintiff had also failed to explain what property he needed to file an amended complaint. His motion was denied. See February 20, 2018 Text Order. Plaintiff spends several pages of his motion to reconsider explaining why he should not have been moved to segregation. (Mot., p. 2-5). Plaintiff then argues all of his property was packed up and he therefore needs extra time to amend to assert a failure to protect claim against Rushville Administrators E466469 and 2D66B3F. Plaintiff notes they are supervisors responsible for the conduct of their subordinates and they failed to take corrective actions to prevent their staff from using excessive force. Plaintiff adds he should not have to amend his complaint to assert his claim, because it is not a foreign concept. (Mot, p. 5). Plaintiff apparently wants to restate the same claim considered on multiple occasions and dismissed. See March 23, 2017 Order, p. 3- 4. His motion to reconsider is denied 34 and the Court will no longer consider future motions to amend. This has been delayed long enough to allow Plaintiff efforts to properly allege his claims. This case will be set for hearing pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (SAG, ilcd) (Entered: 03/08/2018)" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasJudgeReference SJ001502 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de10 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de11 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de22 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de29 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de38 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de40 @default.
- ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de49 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilcd;;4:16-cv-04127_de48 @default.