Hicks v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE1)
Case Number: 2:2006cv00990
Filed: November 1, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Montgomery Office
Presiding Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: Mark E. Fuller
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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
November 9, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 5 RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) the plaintiff's claims against the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed prior to service; (2) the Alabama Department of Corrections be dismissed from this cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the claims lodged against the remaining defendants be referred back to the Magistrate Judge. Objections to R&R due by 11/22/2006. Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/9/06. (sl, )
November 6, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER and Opinion on Motion; Directing Monthly Payments be made from Inmate's Prison Account until fee is paid in full; granting 2 Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis except to the extent payment is required under this order. Copies mailed to plaintiff and Frank Lee Youth Center Inmate account clerk . Signed by Judge Charles S. Coody on 11/6/06. (sl, )
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 this case: Hicks v. Alabama Department of Corrections et al (INMATE1)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?