Shupe v. Feis
E Richard Shupe |
Mark Feis |
4:2023cv00179 |
April 17, 2023 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Pro Se (Tucson) |
John C Hinderaker |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 19 ORDER STRIKING FILED DOCUMENTS FROM THE RECORD re: #17 Notice filed by E Richard Shupe, #15 Notice filed by E Richard Shupe. IT IS ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to Strike from the record Docket No. 15 as erroneously filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to Strike from the record Docket No. 17 from the record as an immaterial and improper filing. Signed by Judge John C Hinderaker on 6/13/2023. (MCO) |
Filing 18 REPLY to Response to Motion re: #6 First MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Mark Feis. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Sanders, Jennifer) |
Filing 17 *STICKEN at Doc. #19 NOTICE re: Plaintiff's Rebuttle to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Notice to the Court by E Richard Shupe re: #16 Notice (Other). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (MCO) *Modified on 6/14/2023 (MCO). |
Filing 16 NOTICE by Mark Feis re: #15 Notice (Other) . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Sanders, Jennifer) |
Filing 15 *STICKEN at Doc. #19 - Document will be refiled in CV-22-529-TUC-RM-MMA - NOTICE to the Court by E Richard Shupe. (MCO) *Modified on 6/14/2023 (MCO). |
Filing 14 RESPONSE to Motion re: #6 First MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by E Richard Shupe. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(MCO) |
Filing 13 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's "Expedited Motion for Alternate Service" (Doc. #9 ) and Plaintiff's "Motion to Vacate Plaintiff's Motion for Alternate Service" (Doc. #12 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff's "Motion for Additional Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. 11). Plaintiff must file his response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 6), on or before 6/8/2023. Signed by Judge John C Hinderaker on 6/2/2023. (MCO) |
Filing 12 MOTION to Withdraw #9 MOTION to Expedite Alternate Service (titled as: Motion to Vacate Plaintiffs Motion for Alternate Service.) by E Richard Shupe. (MCO) |
Filing 11 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to #6 First MOTION to Dismiss Case by E Richard Shupe. (MCO) |
Filing 10 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by E Richard Shupe: Return of Service re: Complaint/Summons upon Mark Feis on 4/28/2023. (MCO) |
Filing 9 MOTION to Expedite Alternate Service by E Richard Shupe. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(MCO) |
Filing 8 ORDER Plaintiff must file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #6 ) no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Defendant may file a reply on or before seven (7) days after service of Plaintiff's response. The Motion to Dismiss will be deemed ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date set for filing a reply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Signed by Judge John C Hinderaker on 5/22/2023. (MCO) |
Filing 7 REQUEST for Judicial Notice by Defendant Mark Feis. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order re: Defendant Feis' Request for Judicial Notice)(Sanders, Jennifer) |
Filing 6 *First MOTION to Dismiss Case by Mark Feis. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Sanders, Jennifer) *Modified to reflect document is not in compliance with 7.1(b)(3) - missing proposed order on 5/22/2023 (MCO). |
Filing 5 ORDER Plaintiff must either serve, or seek a waiver of service for, Defendant Feis. If Plaintiff does not comply 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. (See attached Order for complete details) Signed by Judge John C Hinderaker on 5/18/2023. (MCO) |
Filing 4 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Complaint filed by E Richard Shupe. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (REM) |
Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT (REM) |
Filing 2 Filing fee: $402.00, receipt number 400000877. PAID IN FULL. (REM) |
Filing 1 PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 402.00, receipt number 400000877 filed by E Richard Shupe. (5 pages) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(REM) |
Summons Issued in person at the Customer Service Intake Counter as to Mark Feis. (REM). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. |
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
Search for this case: Shupe v. Feis | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: E Richard Shupe | |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Mark Feis | |
Represented By: | Jennifer June Sanders |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.