Gilchrist v. State of Alabama Department of Transportation et al
| Tommie Lee Gilchrist |
| State of Alabama Department of Transportation, Ronnie Ward and Richard Corbman |
| 2:2018cv01752 |
| October 23, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Abdul K Kallon |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER denying Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis #3 ; the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to file in the Middle District of Alabama or in this court (subsequent to the filing fee) if in fact jurisdiction exists in this court. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 12/5/2018. (AFS)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Tommie Lee Gilchrist. (AFS) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the filing fee of $400.00 in order to commence this action or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by 12/3/2018. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause also by 12/3/2018 why this case should proceed in this court instead of the federal court in Montgomery, Alabama. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 11/20/2018. (AFS)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Richard Corbman, State of Alabama Department of Transportation, Ronnie Ward, filed by Tommie Lee Gilchrist.(AFS) |
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 Northern 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.
