Butler v. Burcham et al
| Mark Butler |
| Doe and Burcham |
| 3:2019cv00270 |
| October 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| James M Moody |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (jak) |
Filing 4
JUDGMENT pursuant to #3 Order, judgment is entered dismissing this case without prejudice; the relief sought is denied. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/3/2019. (jak)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER dismissing without prejudice Butler's complaint. Should Butler wish to continue this case, Butler must submit the statutory filing and administrative fees of $400 to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of the entry date of this Order, along with a motion to reopen the case. #1 IFP motion is denied. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or any Judgment entered hereunder would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/3/2019. (jak)
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants, filed by Mark Butler. (llg) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Mark Butler. (llg) |
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
