Hill v. Payne et al
Adam Hill |
Dexter Payne, William Straughn, Dale Reed, Pitts, Wombly, Horan, Stringfello, Benny Magnus, Solomon Graves, Aundrea Culclager, Rory Griffin, WellPath Medical Corporation, Huff, Rester, Billingsly, Hutchinson, Bob Anderson, Seamster, Conley, Whitfield, Dukes, Parsins, Hoffman, Knight, Saih, Kent, Joe Page, III, Randy Straughn, Deborah Williams, White, Maurice Culclager, Shipman, Miles, Wyman, Culp, Bolden and Ireland |
4:2022cv01201 |
November 30, 2022 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
Patricia S Harris |
James M Moody |
Prison Condition: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 7 (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting #6 Motion for Order. The Court will screen Plaintiff Adam Hill's original complaint (Doc. No. #2 ). The Clerk of Court is directed to send Hill another copy of his complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 1/26/2023. (cfd) |
Filing 6 MOTION to Proceed with Screening of Medical Claims and ADC Claims by Adam Hill. (llg) |
Filing 5 (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER granting #4 Motion to Clarify; granting #4 Motion for Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet and a blank 1983 form. The document referenced by Plaintiff does not exist. His complaint (Doc. No. 2) names numerous medical defendants and is in line to be screened. If Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint, he should do so within 30 days on the 1983 form sent to him. He must describe only one factually related incident or issue if he is suing more than one defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20. Additionally, Hill may not rely on attached grievances or other documents in lieu of a short and concise statement describing his claims. See Fed. Civ. Rule P. 8(d). An amended complaint will render his original complaint without legal effect and only claims properly set out in the amended complaint will be allowed to proceed. If Hill does not timely file an amended complaint, the Court will proceed to screen his original complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 01/13/2023. (dml) |
Filing 4 MOTION to Clarify and MOTION for Status Update by Adam Hill. (ldb) |
Filing 3 INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONER PLAINTIFFS granting #1 IFP motion; assessing an initial partial filing fee of $34.87; directing the initial partial filing fee and monthly payments be made from Plaintiff's institutional account for the $350 filing fee; and directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Warden of the Pine Bluff Unit, the ADC Trust Fund Centralization Bank Office, and the ADC Compliance Office. After screening Hill's complaint, the Court will determine whether service of process is appropriate as to his claims. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 12/02/2022. (llg) (Docket text modified on 12/2/2022 to correct the description of the document filed) (jak) |
NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #3 Order. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to correct the description of the document filed as "INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONER PLAINTIFFS" as marked on the document. (jak) |
Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Adam Hill. (llg) |
Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Adam Hill. (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.