Wilson v. Valenza et al (MAG+)
| Ternecia D. Wilson |
| Donald Valenza and Jeff Carlisle |
| 1:2022cv00261 |
| May 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Emily C Marks |
| Susan Russ Walker |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER: the court hereby ORDERS that the #2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; further ORDERED that the Clerk is DIRECTED to defer service of process on the defendant(s) until further order of the court, following the court's 1915(e) review of the plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Honorable Judge Susan Russ Walker on 5/31/2022. (amf, )
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER: it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, this case is REFERRED to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings and entry of any orders or recommendations as may be appropriate. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 5/5/2022. (am, )
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ternecia D. Wilson. (Attachments: #1 Application)(am, )
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Jeff Carlisle, Donald Valenza, filed by Ternecia D. Wilson. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(am, )
|
|
DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Ternecia D. Wilson. (NO PDF - See doc #1 ) (am, )
|
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 Alabama Middle 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.
