Davis v. Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles et al (INMATE 3)
Thomas Lashawn Davis |
Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, Gabrelle Simmons, Leigh Gwathney and Darryl Littleton |
2:2023cv00725 |
December 15, 2023 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
Stephen Michael Doyle |
Emily C Marks |
Mandamus & Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 Initial Filing fee received: $ 25.00, receipt number 4043 (DMN) |
Filing 4 ORDER granting #2 Affidavit for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis except to the extent payment is required under this order; directing payment of initial partial filing fee of $23.86 be paid on or before January 22, 2024; Directing Monthly Payments be made from Inmate's Prison Account until fee is paid in full; Copies mailed to plaintiff and account clerk at Ventress Correctional Facility. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen Michael Doyle on 1/5/2024. (furn: cashier) (CWL) |
Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Thomas Lashawn Davis. (tps) |
Filing 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit by Thomas Lashawn Davis. (tps) |
Filing 1 Inmate 1983 COMPLAINT against Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles, Leigh Gwathney, Darryl Littleton, Gabrelle Simmons, filed by Thomas Lashawn Davis.(tps) |
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.