Case law

Major v. Wills

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 9, 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 1 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v … Because Major’s claims involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.

Miller v. Mercuria Energy Trading, Inc.

291 F. Supp. 3d 509 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 2018

The Separation Agreement clearly identifies the ULA Articles of Association. … The plaintiff "must make allegations establishing jurisdiction with some 'factual specificity' and cannot establish jurisdiction through conclusory assertions alone." Cont'l Indus. Grp. v.

Basemore

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 21, 2026

For an inmate to demonstrate that a non-medical prison employee exhibited deliberate indifference to a medical need, he must establish a serious medical condition, and he must establish that an official knew that a serious … 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.

Jackson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 2023

arising out of the matters which are the subject of evaluation and review by such committee….However, information, documents or records otherwise available from original sources shall not be construed as immune … First, the Court has entered a HIPAA-Qualified Protective Order. (Doc. 95).

Tri-Township Water District v. Trenton

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 2021

In order to establish a violation of 7 U.S.C. § 1926, a plaintiff must show that: (1) it is an association within the meaning of the statute; (2) it has a qualifying outstanding loan obligation; (3) it has provided or made … In this case, 65 ILCS 5/11-151-3 was in effect at the time Plaintiff was established in 1993.

Blackburn v. Security Staff

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 28, 2023

Notably, Plaintiff has not described facts establishing that John Doe owed a duty to Plaintiff to photograph his injuries or special circumstances giving rise to such duty. … Because Plaintiff’s claims involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Jordan v. Costantino

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 3, 2025

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 … Though Plaintiff does not describe the situation as clearly in his amended complaint as he did in the original, the original complaint and attached exhibits revealed that the change.org papers were seized from fellow inmates

We Shall Overcome Found. v. Richmond Org., Inc.

330 F. Supp. 3d 960 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 31, 2018

Plaintiff WSOF clearly stated their intention to use the entire Song in a soundtrack in their amended complaint, and at that time defendants' had not returned the licensing fees. … While the plaintiffs clearly prevailed and are deserving of compensation, the issues of compensation and deterrence are complex in this case.

Curry v. Butler

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 17, 2021

Any portion of the First Amended 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). … Two elements are required to establish a constitutional violation.

White v. Madison County Court

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 25, 2019

“If it clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4). … Furthermore, White has not established proper grounds for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

Brown v. Millar

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 18, 2024

is immune from such relief must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally construed. See Rodriguez v. … Feb. 28, 2022) (analyzing an inmate’s claim against a prison nurse for giving him an overdose of antibiotics that caused physical ill-effects and finding at summary judgment that the inmate failed to establish the requisite

Wilson v. Wexford Health Sources Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 23, 2020

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). … Plaintiff’s Complaint does not meet the three basic elements which must be established before the Court will consider whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief.

Young

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 3, 2025

He does not clearly explain how the inclusion of the waiver fell below a reasonable standard of professional assistance. … Co., 698 F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (“To prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence

Curtis v. Jarrett

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 17, 2023

He possessed paperwork establishing his approved use of marijuana, but Defendants failed to present or consider this evidence at his disciplinary hearing. Id. at 6. … He was unable to resolve the disciplinary ticket on appeal, seek restoration of good conduct time, go back to camp, or qualify for release to home detention. Id. at 11. He suffered emotional distress.

Drew v. Figueredo

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 15, 2020

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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). … Although Womack agreed that Plaintiff did not qualify as a candidate for either program, she took no action to correct Murphy’s erroneous classification.

Pawelkowski v. Walker

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 10, 2023

Any portion of the First Amended 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). … Plaintiff’s previous motion was denied because he has not submitted evidence establishing that he is indigent (Doc. 34). The instant motion likewise does not demonstrate Plaintiff’s indigency.

Orr v. Mehrtens

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 17, 2023

Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). … The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, established in the cases Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Johnson v. Doe

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 11, 2025

. § 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. … as a party in CM/ECF; and ENTER the standard qualified protective order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Chairs v. Wills

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 3, 2024

Further, the factual record from the state courts shows that the officers clearly qualified their statements by warning that only the State’s Attorney could give promises about sentencing. See People v. … Here, the time of the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court on direct appeal is reference point for determining clearly established federal law.

Dassig v. Honeywell International, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 2022

Cal. 1996) (noting that “applying the ‘ultrahazardous activities' doctrine here would be clearly inconsistent with the Price–Anderson Act.”); Adkins, 960 F.Supp.2d at 766, 768 (same in uranium exposure case). … Similarly, Carey was also decided on summary judgment after extensive discovery failed to establish evidence that defendant exceeded the federal dose limits.