Shayan v. Pima County Adult Detention Center
Mustafa Shayan |
Pima County Adult Detention Center, Chris Nanos and Arizona, State of |
4:2022cv00115 |
March 9, 2022 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Pro Se (Tucson) |
Rosemary Marquez |
Prisoner: Prison Condition |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (titled as First Amended Complaint) against Arizona, State of, Chris Nanos filed by Mustafa Shayan. (15 pages) (Attachments: #1 Plaintiff's Statement)(MYE) |
Filing 12 First AMENDED COMPLAINT against Chris Nanos, Arizona, State of filed by Mustafa Shayan. (6 pages)(MYE) |
Filing 11 SERVICE EXECUTED : Certified Mail Receipt re: Doc. 9 upon Chris Nanos, Pima County Sheriff on 4/20/22. (MYE) |
|
|
Filing 7 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Mustafa Shayan. (1 page) (MYE) |
Filing 6 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Mustafa Shayan. (2 pages) (MYE) |
|
Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (BAC) |
Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Mustafa Shayan. (1 page) (BAC) |
Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Mustafa Shayan. (8 pages) (Attachments: #1 IFP)(BAC) |
Filing 1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed by Mustafa Shayan. (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.