Case law

Ford

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 16, 2026

Based on these findings, Plaintiff did not qualify to proceed IFP under the imminent danger exception, and his motion was denied. Plaintiff was given until June 6, 2026, to pay the full filing fee of $405.00. … These allegations, however, are too ambiguous and not clearly asserted against any of the 50 named Defendants.

Lisle, Jr. v. Lawrence

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 3, 2019

Retaliation for filing a legitimate lawsuit is clearly protected by the First Amendment. Zorzi v. County of Putnam, 30 F.3d 885, 896 (7th Cir.1994). … To establish a special circumstance “something more than possession and control are required, such as a request by the plaintiff to preserve the evidence and/or the defendant’s segregation of the evidence for the plaintiff's

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

354 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Dec 11, 2018

This Opinion holds the SEC to the well-established summary judgment standard. … The one month cut-off which Alpine proposes in opposition to this motion is clearly too short a period.

Woodstock Ventures LC v. Woodstock Roots, LLC

387 F. Supp. 3d 306 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jul 29, 2019

A mark is entitled to protection when it is inherently distinctive; if the mark is 'merely descriptive,' ... it qualifies for protection only if it has acquired secondary meaning." Time Inc. v. Petersen Pub. Co. … Supp. 2d 347 , 366 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (concluding that two alcoholic beverages sold in similar channels are not related because "the nature of the two products is clearly different, since Arbor Hill is traditional table wine

Russell

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 24, 2026

He notes that Hempen confiscated his inhaler initially, but his Complaint clearly indicates that this occurred in either March or April 2024 (Doc. 1, p. 7). … Because Russell’s claims involve his medical care, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter the Court’s standard HIPAA Qualified Protective Order.

Pruiett v. United States

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2023

First, under § 2680(h), Defendant argues its sovereign immunity is not waived for claims arising out of assault and battery. (Sealed Doc. 16, pgs. 3, 7). … The Seventh Circuit has clearly stated its reasons for treating the FTCA exceptions in this way. See Bunch, 880 F.3d at 942 (citing Stewart v. U.S., 199 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1952); quoting S.R.P. ex rel.

Davis v. Thompson

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2019

Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 435-36 (7th Cir. 2013) (“when a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrument, and her complaint references and relies upon that document in asserting her claim … “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

BOKF, NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc'y, FSB (In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C.)

596 B.R. 416 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jan 4, 2019

So the award of fees, no, the payment of fees, is very clearly subject to 506(b). … The second is that the ICA itself included two qualifying clauses.

Robinson v. Alter Barge Line, Inc.

482 F. Supp. 2d 1032 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 15, 2007

As such, state regulation is applicable to maritime matters when it clearly does not conflict with the federal law. Askew v. Am. … Analyzing the facts, the Fifth Circuit did not feel that the public policy considerations at issue in Feemster were as clearly implicated as they had been in Smith .

Dorman v. Madison County

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 24, 2022

Allegations directed at multiple defendants may suffice to plead personal involvement when they clearly pertain to all of those defendants. Brooks v. … Second, the state actor's conduct must have deprived the plaintiff of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution” or federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Wyatt v.

Douglas v. Werlich

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Feb 21, 2020

Respondent’s motionalso seeks to preserve the Department of Justice’s “newly-established position that a prisoner . . . who has already unsuccessfully sought relief under §2255 cannot establish his eligibility to file a … satisfied the “prior unavailability” condition because his claim had clearly been foreclosed by the law in his circuit of conviction at the time he might have raised it in a Section2255 motion.

Bd. of Managers of Trump Tower at City Ctr. Condo. v. Palazzolo

346 F. Supp. 3d 432 · District Court, S.D. Illinois · Sep 28, 2018

Coiro , 922 F.2d 1008 , 1017 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[T]he evidence established that ... … The Statute of Frauds clearly applies to the alleged oral promise made to Mr. Palazzolo.

Austin v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 2020

Shah if he was qualified to do the examination. He also told Dr. Shah that he should not be examined in front of a female correctional officer. … Two elements are required to establish a constitutional violation.

Gully v. Warden Monty

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2024

Habeas relief is restricted 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 … 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

Rowling v. Jeffreys

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

Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985) (“In many cases, the complaint will not clearly specify whether officials are sued personally, in their official capacity, or both. … No information should be provided or disclosed before the entry of a qualified protective order (see below for further instruction).

Peters v. Baldwin

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

In response, Defendant contends that demonstrating his status as a disabled individual is a required element of Plaintiff’s ADA/RA claim that he needed to establish (Doc. 214 at pp. 3-4). … Undoubtedly, proving that Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability (as defined by the ADA/RA), is one of the required elements to state a claim under the ADA and RA. See Scott v.

Wiggins v. Baldwin

District Court, S.D. Illinois · May 27, 2020

Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894–95 (7th Cir. 2008). 3 Defendant Dennison also asserts a qualified immunity defense. … Apostol The record establishes that there is no triable issue as to Dr. Apostol’s alleged deliberate indifference. The fact that Dr.

Hughes

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 24, 2026

. § 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. … Regardless, these isolated examples of alleged delay do not establish a policy, custom, or widespread practice.

Iglesias v. True

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Apr 18, 2022

, all documents providing when the policies were established.” … It was not until the seventh status report that DOJ attorneys clearly represented that the first surgeon merely “refers patients out to other providers for vaginoplasty.” (Doc. 233).

Hazlitt v. Apple Inc.

District Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 2020

Moreover, by its plain language, section 15(c) clearly prohibits profiting from “a person’s or a customer’s” biometric identifier or biometric information, not the general sales of devices equipped with facial recognition … As other courts have established, the states of mind with regard to BIPA only relate to possible recovery for each violation, which is not yet before the Court.