Castillo v. City of Chicago Heights et al

A motion was filed in Castillo v. City of Chicago Heights et al on April 20, 2026, the only docket activity on record so far. The case, filed under docket 25-cv-10224, has not yet been assigned a judge, and the court of record is unconfirmed — likely the Northern District of Illinois based on the Chicago Heights defendant, but that has not been established from available filings.

The case name points to a civil rights or municipal liability claim against the City of Chicago Heights and unnamed additional defendants. Without a complaint or scheduling order in the public record, the precise theory — whether excessive force, wrongful arrest, or some other constitutional tort — is not yet confirmed.

The most recent docket entry references an order on a motion to stay. A stay at this stage typically means one party asked the court to pause proceedings, often because a parallel criminal case is pending, an interlocutory appeal is in flight, or the parties are in early settlement talks. The order's outcome — whether the stay was granted or denied — is not reflected in the available summary.

No judge assignment is on record. That gap matters: without a presiding judge, there is no scheduling order, no trial date, and no clear timeline for discovery or dispositive motions. Cases in this posture can sit in administrative limbo for weeks after filing before a judge takes the wheel.

Watch the stay order closely. If the court granted a stay, the case goes quiet until the triggering condition resolves. If the court denied it, the parties move into discovery, and the City of Chicago Heights will face pressure to produce records — use-of-force reports, personnel files, incident documentation — that tend to define the litigation's shape.