McIntyre v. Arizona Board of Regents et al
| Scott McIntyre |
| Nancy Gonzales, Arizona State University, Sukhwant Jhaj, Erin Ellison, Samantha Blevins, Carla Harcleroad, Michael Crow and Arizona Board of Regents |
| 3:2024cv08151 |
| July 29, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| David G Campbell |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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. (KJ) |
| Filing 3 This case has been assigned to the Honorable David G Campbell. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-24-08151-PCT-DGC. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (KJ) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST BY NON-PRISONER PRO SE PARTY FOR ELECTRONIC NOTICING filed by Scott McIntyre. Pro se parties must promptly notify the Clerks Office, in writing, if there is a change in designated e-mail address or mailing address. (KJ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $405.00 filed by Scott McIntyre. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(KJ) |
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.
