Thomas v. Tucson Medical Center et al
| Arnett Thomas |
| Tucson Medical Center, CODAC Behavioral Health Services, Office of Behavioral Health Care Licensure, Eileen Collins, Bryon Herbel and Office of the Arizona Department of Health Services |
| 4:2022cv00143 |
| March 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Pro Se (Tucson) |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Prisoner: Prison Condition |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Additional Attachment to Main Document re: #10 Notice of Appeal by Plaintiff Arnett Thomas. (6 pages) (BAC) |
| Filing 11 USCA Case Number re: #10 Notice of Appeal. Case number 22-15679, Ninth Circuit. (Copies distributed by the Ninth Circuit.) (DLC) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: #9 Clerks Judgment by Arnett Thomas. (2 pages) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DLC) |
| Filing 9 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's Order filed 4/19/22, judgment is entered against plaintiff for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff to take nothing, and the Amended complaint and action are dismissed. (BAC) |
Filing 8
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED the 3/30/22 #5 Judgment is VACATED. The Clerk of Court must RE-OPEN this action. Plaintiff's #7 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. The #6 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim under 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly. The docket shall reflect that the Court, under 28 USC 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds that Plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 4/18/22. (BAC)
|
| Filing 7 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Arnett Thomas. (2 pages) (BAC) |
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Tucson Medical Center filed by Arnett Thomas. (Case was closed on 3/30/22) (6 pages) (BAC) |
| Filing 5 VACATED by Doc. #8 . CLERK'S JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's Order filed 3/30/22, judgment is entered against plaintiff for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff to take nothing, and the complaint and action are dismissed. (BAC) Modified on 4/19/2022 (BAC). |
|
Filing 4
ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's #2 Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. IT IS ORDERED the #1 Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. The docket shall reflect that the Court, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), has considered whether an appeal of this decision would be taken in good faith and finds Plaintiff may appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/29/22. (BAC)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (BAC) |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Arnett Thomas. (2 pages) (BAC) |
| Filing 1 *PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed by Arnett Thomas. (11 pages) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(BAC) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/25/2022: #2 Complaint (Correct version with case number)) (BAC). *Modified to add document with case number on 3/25/2022 (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.
