Stockton v. Huff et al
| Joshua M Stockton |
| Ramona Huff, Aundrea Culclager, Lee, Does Wellpath Employees, ADC Employees, Rester, Billingsley and Yvonne Johnson |
| 4:2023cv00476 |
| May 24, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Patricia S Harris |
| Brian S Miller |
| Prison Condition: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants, filed by Joshua M Stockton. (ldb) |
Filing 9
ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to send a blank 1983 complaint form toStockton; and directing Stockton has 30 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 7/7/2023. (cmn)
|
|
Filing 8
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER denying #7 Motion to Appoint Counsel. A civil litigant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil action but the Court may appoint counsel at its discretion. 28 U.S.C. s. 1915(e)(1). The Court has considered plaintiff's need for an attorney, the likelihood that plaintiff will benefit from assistance of counsel, the factual complexity of the case, the plaintiff's ability to investigate and present his case, and the complexity of the legal issues. In considering these factors, the Court finds that plaintiff's claims do not appear legally or factually complex, and it appears he is capable of prosecuting his claims without appointed counsel at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 06/29/2023. (dml)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Joshua M Stockton. (ldb) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Change of Address by Joshua M Stockton. (cmn) |
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Joshua M Stockton. (llg) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #3 application to proceed in forma pauperis; assessing an initial partial filing fee of $13.43; directing the initial partial filing fee and monthly payments be made from Plaintiff's prison trust account for the $350 filing fee; directing the Clerk of the Court 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, and a blank 1983 complaint form to Stockton; and directing Stockton to file an amended complaint regarding his claims within 30 days from the date of this Order. In the event he fails to file an amended complaint conforming to this order by that date, this case may be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 06/05/2023. (llg)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Joshua M Stockton. (kdr) |
|
Filing 2
INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PRISONER PLAINTIFFS directing the Clerk of Court to enclose an IFP application along with a copy of this order; and directing Plaintiff to return a completed IFP application, including an accompanying certificate and calculation sheet, or pay the $402.00 filing and administrative fees within 30 days of the date of this order. Otherwise, the lawsuit will be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris on 05/24/2023. (llg)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Joshua M Stockton. (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.
