Soto v. Ritter

Soto v. Ritter

Plaintiff:	Christopher Joseph Soto, Sr.
Defendant:	Matt Ritter
Case Number:	2:2013cv00692
Filed:	April 4, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
County:	Pinal
Presiding Judge:	David G Campbell
Presiding Judge:	Mark E Aspey (PS)
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
August 13, 2013	Filing 22 ORDER that to the extent that Plaintiff seeks any relief in his request (Doc. 18 ), such relief is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/13/2013.(KMG)
May 20, 2013	Filing 14 ORDER Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is granted. As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee. The Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff's Request, Motion or Notices are denied as moot, to the extent that any relief is sought therein. (Doc. 5-13 .) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/17/2013.(KMG)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 13, 2013

Filing 22 ORDER that to the extent that Plaintiff seeks any relief in his request (Doc. 18 ), such relief is denied. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/13/2013.(KMG)

May 20, 2013

Filing 14 ORDER Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2 ) is granted. As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee. The Complaint (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. Plaintiff's Request, Motion or Notices are denied as moot, to the extent that any relief is sought therein. (Doc. 5-13 .) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim may count as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/17/2013.(KMG)

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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Soto v. Ritter
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Matt Ritter
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Christopher Joseph Soto, Sr.
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?