Reese v. Shashy et al (INMATE 1)

Plaintiff: Joe Reese
Defendant: Robert Bentley, Kim Tobias Thomas and William A. Shashy
Case Number: 2:2012cv00057
Filed: January 20, 2012
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Chilton
Referring Judge: Charles S. Coody
Presiding Judge: William Keith Watkins
Nature of Suit: Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
March 20, 2014 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDERED that the 23 Recommendation is ADOPTED and that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure of Plf to file an amended complaint as directed by orders of the court. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/20/2014. (wcl, )
April 9, 2012 16 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that the 15 Recommendation is ADOPTED as follows: (1) Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to orders/actions undertaken by Judge William Shashy are DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with the directiv es of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); (2) Plaintiff's claims for damages against Judge William Shashy are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii); (3) Plaintiff's claims regarding a cons piracy are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); and (4) This action, with respect to the conditions claims against Defendants Thomas and Bentley, are REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for appropriate proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/9/2012. (jg, )
February 14, 2012 11 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER as follows: 1. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 5 is ADOPTED; 2. Defendant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 1 is DENIED; and 3. this case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on Plaintiff's claims. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/14/2012. (jg, )
February 1, 2012 7 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ON MOTION that 2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED except to the extent payment is required under this order. Directing Monthly Payments be made from Inmate's Prison Account until fee is paid in full; Copies mailed to plaintiff and account clerk at the Ventress Correctional Facility. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 2/1/2012. (jg, )

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: Reese v. Shashy et al (INMATE 1)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Robert Bentley
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Kim Tobias Thomas
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: William A. Shashy
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Joe Reese
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 [ 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?