Hancock v. Smith et al
| Gary Hancock |
| John Doe, Saylor, Nancy Smith and Asst. Warden Parker |
| 7:2020cv00225 |
| April 20, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| James P Jones |
| Pamela Meade Sargent |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 28 USC Section 1331 Bivens Act; Regarding Prisoner Trust Account;Statement of Assets; Advising inmate as to 3 strikes rule of PLRA; Assessing a filing fee; Deferring all action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal within 20 days Responses due by 5/13/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 4/20/2020. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
|
|
Filing 3
MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Gary Hancock. (slt)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Gary Hancock. Motions referred to Judge Pamela Meade Sargent. (slt)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 against John Doe, Parker, Saylor, Nancy Smith, filed by Gary Hancock. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(slt) (Initial documents filed this date are written in pencil; some may be difficult to read.) (slt).
|
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 Virginia Western 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.
