Banks v. Pugh
| Frederick Banks |
| Michael Pugh, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lennert Leader, National Security Agency, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Central Intelligence Agency, Raj De, Director of National Intelligence, Keith Alexander, Robert S. Litt, CO Soltez, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Joy Flowers Conti, Nora Barry Fisher and CO Brett |
| 4:2014cv01639 |
| July 24, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Youngstown Office |
| Mahoning |
| John R. Adams |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
11
Order: For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Motions to Proceed IFP are denied and this action is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the three strikes rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Motion to Expedite Hearing i s denied as moot. If Plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he must within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order: (1) pay the $400 filing fee in full, noting the above case style and number; and (2) file a motion to reopen the case. The Clerk's Office shall not accept any additional documents for filing in this case unless the $400 filing fee is paid in full. Further, the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 01/21/2015. Related documents: 10 , 2 , 9 , 7 (M,TL)
|
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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
