Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

Vinson v. Art Howell et al. (2:19-cv-01237-WED)

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Share on Social Media

Vinson v. Art Howell et al. (2:19-cv-01237-WED)

Follow on Feedly for case updates: follow us on feedly

RSS: RSS Feed Icon

  • ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 12/2/2019. The clerk's office shall replace the John Doe placeholder for officers 1 and 2 with Justin Schmidt-Quist and Stephen Jaskowiak. The clerk's office shall leave the John Doe p laceholder for officer 3. Chief Art Howell is DISMISSED as a defendant. The U.S. Marshals Service shall serve a copy of the complaint (ECF No. (Document 1) ), the screening order (ECF No. (Document 10) ), and this order upon defendants Justin Schmidt-Quist and Stephen Jaskowiak. Defendants Justin Schmidt-Quist and Stephen Jaskowiak shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff)(mlm)

  • ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 11/7/2019. The plaintiff Joshua Lee Vinson, Sr.'s motion to demand (ECF No. (Document 15) ) is DENIED. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff) (mlm)

  • SCREENING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin on 10/8/2019. The plaintiff Joshua Lee Vinson, Sr.'s motion to waive the initial partial filing fee and his motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee (ECF Nos. (Document 9) , (Document 2) ) are GRANTED. The Racine Police Department is DISMISSED. The clerk's office shall add John Doe Officers 1-3 and Racine Police Chief Art Howell as defendants in this case. The U.S. Marshals Service shall serve a copy of the complaint (ECF N o. (Document 1) ) and this order on Chief Howell. Chief Howell does not have to respond to Vinson's complaint; however, he must respond to Vinson's discovery requests as described in this order. Vinson must identify the names of the John Doe officer s within sixty days of Chief Howell's attorney filing a notice of appearance. If he does not do so, or does not explain to the court why he is unable to do so, the court may dismiss his case based on his failure to diligently pursue it. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff, Sheriff) (mlm)

Use this searchbox to search JudicialCaselaw.com for more interesting court decisions.

Vinson v. Art Howell et al. (2:19-cv-01237-WED)

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Share this with your network