Clement v. Higgins et al
| Ty Clement |
| Higgins, Calvin, Thompson and Does Unknown Deputies (Housing Unit Officers), PCDC |
| 4:2022cv00936 |
| September 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Edie R Ervin |
| James M Moody |
| Prison Condition: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 31, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (ldb) |
Filing 4
JUDGMENT: Consistent with #3 Order, this case is hereby dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/31/2022. (ldb)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER dismissing, without prejudice, Mr. Clement's claims; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/31/2022. (ldb)
|
|
Filing 2
INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONER-PLAINTIFFS directing the Clerk to enclose, along with a copy of this Order, an IFP application; and directing Plaintiff to return a completed IFP application, including an accompanying affidavit and jail account information sheet, or pay the $402.00 filing fee, within 30 days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 09/30/2022. (llg)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Ty Clement.(kdr) |
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.
