Shatner v. Page, et al

Filing 185

CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Darrin Shatner against C/O Benefield, Captain Pierce, Ian Oliver, Lt Westerman, Lt. Gilbert, Roger Cowan, Supt Frenzel; in favor of Darrin Shatner against C/O Stewart, Lt Westerman; in favor of C/O Dobbs, Thomas Page against Darrin Shatner; in favor of Deputy Director Clark, Donald Snyder against Darrin Shatner; in favor of Unknown Party, C/O Dixon, Capt Harvy, Capt Young, Lt Gilgert, Lt Tayler, Supt Terry, Warden Mcaclory against Darrin Shatner. Plaintiff awarded total damages in the amount of $1,770.00. (See Judgment for specifics) Approved by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 6/25/09. (skp, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DARRIN SHATNER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THOMAS PAGE, ROGER COWAN, ) IAN OLIVER, SUPT. FRENZEL, ) CAPT.YOUNG, CAPTAIN PIERCE, ) LT. WESTERMAN, LT. GILGERT, ) LT.TAYLER, CAPT. HARVY, ) C/O DOBBS, UNKNOWN PARTY, ) Two "John Does", SUPT. TERRY, ) DEPUTY DIRECTOR CLARK, ) C/O DIXON, C/O STEWART, ) LT. GILBERT, WARDEN ) MCACLORY, DONALD SNYDER, ) C/O BENEFIELD and LT. GAILES, ) ) Defendants. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-251-DRH JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE DECISION BY COURT. This action is before the Court pursuant to a bench trial held by this Court on May 12 and 13, 2008. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated February 4, 2009, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, DARRIN SHATNER and against defendants, ROGER COWAN, IAN OLIVER, SUPT. FRENZEL, CAPTAIN PIERCE, LT. WESTERMAN, LT. GILBERT, and C/O BENEFIELD, on plaintiff's religion claims as stated in Count 2 of plaintiff's complaint. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated February 4, 2009, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff, DARRIN SHATNER and against defendants, LT. WESTERMAN and C/O STEWART on plaintiff's legal mail claim as stated in Count 6 of plaintiff's complaint. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated February 4, 2009, plaintiff, DARRIN SHATNER is entitled to compensatory damages for his books in the amount of $768.00, and nominal damages in the amount of $1.00 on his legal mail claim and nominal damages in the amount of $1.00 for depriving him of his religious medallion and that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of $1,000.00 for a total of $1,770.00. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated June 18, 2009, with regard to plaintiff's RLUIPA and IRFR claims, the Court finds that defendants are liable only under the First Amendment and Shatner's recovery is limited to same. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated May 7, 2009, judgment is entered in favor of defendants THOMAS PAGE, C/O DOBBS and LT. GAILES and against plaintiff, DARRIN SHATNER, as those defendants were DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the Stipulation to Dismiss filed May 6, 2009. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the oral motion to dismiss made by plaintiff on May 12, 2008, during the bench trial in the above matter, judgment is entered in favor of defendants, DEPUTY DIRECTOR CLARK and DONALD SNYDER and against plaintiff, DARRIN SHATNER and the claim against those defendants as stated in Count 5 of plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Order of this Court dated November 13, 2002, judgment is entered in favor of defendants, CAPT. YOUNG, LT. GILBERT (originally sued as Lt. Gilgert), LT. TAYLOR, CAPT. HARVY, TWO "JOHN DOES", SUPT. TERRY, C/O DIXON, and WARDEN MCACLORY and against plaintiff, DARRIN SHATNER, as stated in Counts 1, 3, 4, and 7, and this dismissal is now with prejudice--------JUSTINE FLANAGAN, ACTING CLERK BY: Dated: June 25, 2009 APPROVED: /s/ DavidRHer|do| CHIEF JUDGE U. S. DISTRICT COURT /s/Sandy Pannier Deputy Clerk

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?