Case law

Rest. Law Ctr. v. City of N.Y.

360 F. Supp. 3d 192 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 6, 2019

Even assuming arguendo that this diversion is minimal, this "opportunity cost" qualifies as an injury-in-fact. Citing Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. … Lanni , 466 F.2d 1102 , 1108 (3d Cir. 1972) ("[T]he broad and unequivocal language of § 302 [ ( 29 U.S.C. § 186 ) ] clearly reaches the conduct for which appellants were convicted.

Harris v. Franke

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 2022

Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed … Because this suit addresses one or more medical claims, the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Knox v. Jeffreys

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 22, 2021

Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief … The RA also prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals based on a physical or mental disability. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-94e.

Marion HealthCare, LLC v. Southern Illinois Healthcare

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2020

Because of the nature of this case, the parties have engaged in recurring negotiations about redacting portions of the record that qualify as trade secrets or qualified proprietary information, as they … In addition, the findings of fact are not “clearly incorrect” after the Court’s review of the record. See FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f)(3); Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1010 (7th Cir.1998).

Nance v. Werlich

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 18, 2019

and sentence under § 2255 and may not file a “second or successive” § 2255 motion unless a panel of the appropriate court of appeals certifies that such motion either 1) contains newly discovered evidence “sufficient to establish … Further, Nance is hereby WARNED that his continued filing of petitions, papers, or claims that are clearly foreclosed or frivolous in future habeas actions may subject him to sanctions pursuant to Alexander v.

Rumsey

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 13, 2025

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). … To state a claim for negligence in Illinois, a complaint must allege facts to establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff

Dibble v. Kink

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 6, 2020

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the state court “identifies the correct governing legal rule from [Supreme Court] cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts … In any event, Dibble’s claim would also fail on the merits because the appellate court’s analysis as to whether there was error was correct under clearly established federal law at the time of its decision.

U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Alpine Sec. Corp.

308 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2018

The care with which it is completed may determine whether or not the described activity and its possible criminal nature are clearly understood by investigators. … As the 2002 Form explains: "the care with which [the SAR] is completed may determine whether or not the described activity and its possible criminal nature are clearly understood by investigators."

Deairis Tipler v. Madelyn Daley, Grant Menges, and Calley R. Mize

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 12, 2025

Plaintiff, in response, states that, viewing the facts in light most favorable to him, he clearly alleges Defendants committed multiple constitutional violations, including First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment … Plaintiff states that federal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants are private individuals acting jointly with state or federal officials, and whether Defendants’ conduct qualifies as acting

Wadlington v. Werlich

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 7, 2020

Additionally, he may not file a “second or successive” § 2255 motion unless a panel of the appropriate court of appeals certifies that such motion contains either 1) newly discovered evidence “sufficient to establish by … Marske, without stating which of its various articulations of the test should control going forward, the court concluded that the petitioner satisfied the “prior unavailability” condition because his claim had clearly been

West v. Wills

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 9, 2022

Under Section 1915A, any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or requests money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief … These allegations do not sufficiently plead that Wills acted with deliberate indifference, as the denial of a grievance, alone, does not establish liability. See Owens v.

Martin v. Central State Construction, Incorporated

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 23, 2021

In order to qualify for a loan, Martin needed a minimum credit score of 680 (Doc. 42-4, p. 15). … Moreover, there is simply no way Martin could tie any damages to that particular representation since he clearly did not rely on it, as evidenced by his own testimony.

McClurkin v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 29, 2022

The IDOC Defendants also assert qualified immunity as a defense to all claims (Id.). … Ill. 2015) (“isolated occurrences of deficient medical treatment are generally insufficient to establish . . . deliberate indifference”).

Burnett v. Mueller

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 28, 2019

. § 2254(d) restricts habeas relief to cases where the state court determination “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined … “unreasonable application of” clearly established federal law if the state court “identifies the correct governing legal rulefrom [Supreme Court]casesbut unreasonably applies itto the facts of the particular state prisoner

Miller v. Rauner

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 30, 2020

Paul ordered lab work to check whether Plaintiff was immune to hepatitis A and B; if he was not immune, he agreed to being vaccinated (Doc. 265-6, p. 132; Doc. 282-1, pp. 98–99). … Plaintiff saw Rose Loos, a Qualified Mental Health Provider (“QMHP”), for a one-on-one therapy session one week after his appointment with Dr.

Thompson v. Banner Life Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 5, 2024

Considering the above, the first question before the Court is whether or not a family medical questionnaire qualifies as “genetic information” in accordance with GIPA. … “Managed care plan” is defined as “a plan that establishes, operates, or maintains a network of health care providers that have entered into agreements with the plan to provide health care services to enrollees where the

Braden v. City of Marion Illinois

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 7, 2023

Any portion of the Complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or requests money damages from an immune defendant must be dismissed. Id. … “The Constitution does not require that a prison provide a formal grievance procedure nor adhere to their own procedures if they establish one.

Howard v. Crain

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 31, 2024

Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed … Plaintiff has clearly attempted to retain his own counsel, but this is not the end of the inquiry.

Robinson v. Wexford Health Care

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 14, 2023

Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed … App’x 390 (7th Cir. 2018) (a court may dismiss a complaint upon screening if it is clearly barred by the statute of limitations).

Mean v. Pinckneyville Correctional Center

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 2024

Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed … Based on the allegations in the Complaint, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.