Case law

Carwyle v. Anna Hospital Corp.

102 F. Supp. 3d 1024 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2015

the protected group,” (2) “evidence, whether or not rigorously statistical, that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received systematically better treatment,” or (3) “evidence that the employee was qualified … Plaintiffs claim for emotional distress is clearly intricately linked to her sexual harassment claims, a claim established under the IHRA. As a result, the claim for IIED is preempted.

Jeude v. USA

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 8, 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 … To establish a standard deliberate indifference claim, a Plaintiff must show that he or she had a serious medical condition, and that the defendant actually knew of and disregarded a serious risk of harm.

Knight First Amendment Inst. At Columbia Univ. v. Trump

302 F. Supp. 3d 541 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 23, 2018

Dep't of Agric. , 795 F.3d 1148 , 1156 n.5 (9th Cir. 2015) ("Partial relief ... would qualify as redress for standing purposes." (citing Meese v. … Government Ownership or Control First, to potentially qualify as a forum, the space in question must be owned or controlled by the government.

Quiles v. Upton

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2024

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 Court will not issue a TRO unless “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be

Morris v. Borwick

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 20, 2024

Section 1915A requires dismissal of any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … To qualify, a plaintiff must set forth “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show[ing] that immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can

Lawrence

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 27, 2026

Analysis To establish a conditions of confinement claim, an inmate must establish (1) a deprivation that is, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently serious that it results in the … Ultimately, a plaintiff must establish a discrete physical harm to qualify for compensatory damages. See e.g., Gray v.

Nolan

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 6, 2025

To establish a conditions of confinement claim, an inmate must establish (1) a deprivation that is, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently serious that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life … 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.

Phillips v. United States

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

In an order dated February 7, 2022, the Court found Phillips had only pled one colorable claim not barred by sovereign immunity—a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) & 2671-2680—and it … Rule 59(e) relief is only available if the movant clearly establishes one of the foregoing grounds for relief. Harrington v. City of Chi., 433 F.3d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Romo v.

In re Signet Jewelers Ltd. Sec. Litig.

389 F. Supp. 3d 221 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 11, 2019

Cigna did not purport to change the well-established law regarding materiality. … Significantly, Cigna did not rule (as Defendants imply) that all statements in codes of conduct qualify as "puffery." Rather, the Cigna court expressly stated that " 'context' " bears on materiality. Id.

Chest v. Merriman

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 2023

Next, as to Merriman, the Court has already explained that the allegation that Merriman made offensive comments standing alone is not sufficient to establish a claim. … Plaintiff does not clearly describe what Merriman did, on which occasions, or how it impacted her.

House v. Wills

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 22, 2025

The movant bears the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See Santaella v. Metropolitan Life Ins. … Meyers’s decision, or that the unit officers also indicated their surprise with that decision, without more, is not enough to establish an Eighth Amendment violation.

Grigalanz v. Grigalanz

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 2019

Plaintiff has sufficiently established his indigence in his Motion and accompanying affidavit as he states that he is currently incarcerated and unemployed, has no other income and, that his prisoner trust … Thus, the Court can dismiss a case if it determines the action is clearly frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also

Bommersbach v. Ruiz

461 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 9, 2006

Motion to Dismiss The standard governing motions to dismiss is well-established. … The third factor is “the evidence that will be necessary to establish the standard of care [at trial] ....

Robinson v. Kink

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 2022

Defendants further contend that Robinson’s ailments received medical attention and did not qualify as “serious medical needs.” … Lastly, Defendants assert qualified immunity as a defense to all claims (Id.). 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), Robinson’s lack of response could be interpreted as an admission of the merits of the motion.

Perkins v. Brown

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 25, 2024

§ 1983; that no reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s medical care constituted deliberate indifference; and that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … In light of the above, the Court need not address Defendant Brown’s Page 13 of 16 argument regarding qualified immunity.

Williams v. IDOC

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

Knauer is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims or to qualified immunity, and the motion is denied as to her. 7. … Like the other Defendants, to the extent she is claiming that she is entitled to qualified immunity, her argument is simply too undeveloped to succeed (see Doc. 97, p. 16).

Noel v. City of New York

357 F. Supp. 3d 298 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 23, 2019

The privilege is qualified, and a document is subject to disclosure after application of a five-factor balancing test articulated in the Rodriguez v. Pataki case. … In this case, the City's decisionmaking clearly is the central issue challenged by Plaintiffs. Thus, this factor, which also is constant as to each document at issue, favors disclosure in this litigation.

Exum v. Jeffreys

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 26, 2024

out non-meritorious claims and dismiss any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks money damages from a defendant who by law is immune … Meyers was not qualified to assess him, and he should have been seen by an orthopedic doctor. (Id. at p. 12).

Seats v. Shah

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2022

Any portion of the Complaint that is legally 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). … Nonetheless, his pleading clearly articulates the relevant facts and his claims, and the Court finds that Plaintiff is capable of litigating on his own at this early stage.

Allen v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 2024

. § 1915A, which requires this Court to dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. … Because the claims in this case arise from the denial of medical care, the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to ENTER the Court’s standard HIPAA-Qualified Protective Order.