CLAUSO v. JOHN DOES
Plaintiff: THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO
Defendant: JOHN DOES
Case Number: 2:2012cv03971
Filed: June 26, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of New Jersey
Office: Newark Office
County: Essex
Presiding Judge: Claire C. Cecchi
Presiding Judge: Joseph A. Dickson
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REOPENING CASE; construing the letters in civil no. 09-5306,docket Nos. 67 and 68 as motions for reconsideration of this Court's prior order; granting and denying in part Clauso's motions for reconsideration; d irecting that the Clerk remit to Clauso the filing fee of $5.00 in connection with 12-3969; directing that the Clerk remit to Clauso the filing fee of $350.00 dollars submitted in connection with the submissions made in Clauso -v- Does Civi l No. 12-3971; administrativley terminating Civil No. 12-3969; pltf. may have Civil No. 12-3969 and 12-3971 reopened in the event Clauso submits in those matters his amended pleading; denying informa pauperis application in Civil No. 12-5601; adminis tratively terminating civil No. 12-5601; Clauso may reopened Civil12-5601 in the event he submits an amended complt. with in informa pauperis application and fee; directing the Clerk to serve, by regular mail, a copy of this memorandum and order, two copies of a blank civil complt. forms, a blank section 2254 habeas petition form and three application for in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 9/26/2012. (nr,) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
June 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MEMORANDUM OPINION/ORDER that Plaintiffs application, Docket Entry No. 56, is construed as either Plaintiffs habeas petition, executed pursuant to Section 2254, or as a distinct and separate civil complaint; that Plaintiffs application, Docket Entry No. 56, is dismissed as improperly docketed in this matter; that the Clerk shall open a new and separate habeas matter for Plaintiff, designated Cause: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (state) and Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General) ; that, in this new and separate habeas matter, the Clerk shall designate THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO as Petitioner Pro Se 3 and WARDEN OF CLAUSOS PLACE OF CONFINEMENT as Respondent; that the Clerk shall docket Plaintiffs application (docketed in this matter as Docket Entry No. 56) in that new and separate habeas matter opened for Plaintiff; the Clerk shall designate that docket entry as PETITION-IMPROPERLY FILED and as docket entry no. 1; that the Clerk shall docket this Memorandum Opinion and Order in that new and separate habeas matter; the Clerk shall designate that docket entry as ORDER and as docket entry no. 2; etc.. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 6/26/2012. (mn, )
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 New Jersey District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CLAUSO v. JOHN DOES
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: THOMAS JAMES CLAUSO
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JOHN DOES
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?