Harvey v. AK CHIN Indian Community et al
| T L Harvey |
| AK CHIN Indian Community, AK CHIN Tribal Gaming Agency, Caesars Entertainment Corporation AK Chin operator of Chop Block Restaurant doing business as Chop Block Restaurant, Unknown Sordia, Unknown Gonzalez and Unknown Trevino |
| 2:2022cv00295 |
| February 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| John Z Boyle (PS) |
| John Z Boyle |
| James A Teilborg |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion (doc. #7 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the Marshal's Process Receipt & Return form (USM-285) and Notice of Lawsuit & Request for Waiver of Service of Summons form for Defendants. Plaintiff must complete and return the service packet to the Clerk of the Court within 21 days of the date of the filing of this Order. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge John Z Boyle on 4/21/2022. (LAD)
|
| Filing 8 Summons Issued as to Caesars Entertainment Corporation at customer service intake counter. (SST) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Service by U.S. Marshal Service by T L Harvey. (2 pages) (WLP) |
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to AK CHIN Indian Community, AK CHIN Tribal Gaming Agency, Unknown Gonzalez, Unknown Sordia, Unknown Trevino. **Please note - the summons for Caesars Entertainment Corporation was not issued. The party name on the summons did not match the named defendant. Plaintiff was notified to correct and resubmit** (WLP) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER - Plaintiff must either serve each Defendant or seek a waiver of service for each Defendant. If Plaintiff does not either obtain a waiver of service of the summons or complete service of the Summons and Complaint on a Defendant within 90 days of the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later, the action may be dismissed as to each Defendant not served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Defendants must answer the Complaint or otherwise respond by appropriate motion within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any answer or response must state the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed. The Court may strike any answer, response, or other motion or paper that does not identify the specific Defendant by name on whose behalf it is filed. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for all pretrial proceedings as authorized under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). If properly completed, the Clerk of Court must issue the proposed Summonses filed at Doc. #2 . See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/16/2022. (WLP)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT re informational documents attached: (1) Notice to Self-Represented Litigant, (2) Federal Court Self-Service Clinic Flyer, (3) Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, and (4) Notice and Request re Electronic Noticing. (BAS) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (BAS) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by T L Harvey. (BAS) |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number PHX235591 filed by T L Harvey. (34 Pages) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(BAS) (BAS). |
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 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.
