Mishenko v. Thompson et al
| Francisco Antonio Mishenko, III |
| Todd P Zoglman, Eleanor Thompson, Patricia Lowell and Unknown Party |
| 4:2019cv00229 |
| April 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Pro Se (Tucson) |
| Raner C Collins |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 30, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDERED: Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. #2 ) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff must either pay the $350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee or file a complete Application to Proceed and a certified six-month trust account statement. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice to Plaintiff and deny any pending unrelated motions as moot. Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. #4 ) is denied. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 5/30/2019. (MCO)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION by Francisco Antonio Mishenko, III. (4 pages).(BAC) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (BAC) |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Francisco Antonio Mishenko, III. (2 pages). (BAC) |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed by Francisco Antonio Mishenko, III. (6 pages). (Attachments: #1 envelope)(BAC) |
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.
