Thomas v. Douglas County Jail
||Douglas County Jail
||July 7, 2011
||Nebraska District Court
||4 Lincoln Office
||Pro Se Docket
||Warren K. Urbom
|Nature of Suit:
||Prisoner: Civil Rights
|Cause of Action:
||42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|July 11, 2011
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff, Michael Thomas, is directed to correct the above-listed technical defect in the Complaint on or before August 8, 2011. Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal of this matter wit hout further notice. The clerk of the court is directed to send to Michael Thomas the Form AO240, Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: August 8, 2011: Check for MIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party along with A0240 form)(GJG)
|September 6, 2011
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Motion to Quash Complaint 7 - The plaintiff's Motion to Quash Complaint, construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal, (filing no. 7 ) is granted and Michael Thomas' claims are dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order on Motion to Quash Complaint. All other pending motions are denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (TEL)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.