LaFleur v. Davis
| Clifford Kevin LaFleur |
| Ricky Davis |
| 3:2020cv00147 |
| May 26, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| D P Marshall |
| Joe J Volpe |
| Prison Condition: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER denying #12 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/24/2020. (jak)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (jbh) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #8 Order and #9 Judgment, by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (jbh) |
| Filing 10 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (jbh) |
| Filing 9 JUDGMENT: Lafleur's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/24/2020. (jbh) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER adopting #5 Recommendation as supplemented. LaFleur's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This dismissal counts as a "strike" and an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/24/2020. (jak)
|
| Filing 7 OBJECTION to #5 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (ljb) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE to the Court by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (kdr) |
|
Filing 5
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted #2 . Dismissal count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from an order adopting this recommendation and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. Objections due no later than 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 6/8/2020. (lej)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting Plaintiff's IFP Application #1 . Service is not appropriate at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 6/8/2020. (lej)
|
| Filing 3 AFFIDAVIT and Petition in Support of #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (ljb) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Ricky Davis filed by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (ljb) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Clifford Kevin LaFleur. (ljb) |
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
| Search for this case: LaFleur v. Davis | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Clifford Kevin LaFleur | |
| 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: Ricky Davis | |
| 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.
