Irvin v. State of Alabama Department of Corrections et al
| George Eugene Irvin |
| Jefferson Dunn and State of Alabama Department of Corrections |
| 5:2019cv00720 |
| May 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Liles C Burke |
| John E Ott |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 PRISONER CONSENT FORM by George Eugene Irvin (AHI) |
| Filing 5 SUPPLEMENT to #1 Complaint by George E. Irvin (AHI) |
Filing 4
ORDER terming motion or declaration for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff is required to pay an initial partial filing fee of $10.66, plaintiff is required to return signed attached consent form within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Ott on 6/19/2019. (AHI)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by George Eugene Irvin. (AHI) |
|
Filing 2
NOTICE OF DEFICIENT PLEADING that the plaintiff has 30 days from the entry date of this order to correct the deficient pleading failing which this action may be dismissed for want of prosecution as more fully set out in order. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Ott on 5/15/2019. (AHI )
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jefferson Dunn and State of Alabama Department of Corrections filed by George Eugene Irvin.(AHI) |
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.
