London v. McDaniel et al
| Barry D. London |
| Nevada County, AR, C Owens, David Norwood, Doug Woods, Stephanie Holmes, Kyle McDaniel, Bush and Nathan Lane |
| 1:2021cv01025 |
| May 27, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas |
| Barry A Bryant |
| Susan O Hickey |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Mail Returned as Undeliverable marked RTS. Mail originally sent to Barry Landon at ADC - OUACHITA RIVER UNIT P. O. Box 1630 Malvern, AR 72104 including 8 Order Regarding IFP Application-Deficient or Renew - TEXT ONLY 9 Order Regarding Complaint Deficiency - TEXT ONLY. No new address available. (cnn) |
| Filing 10 Mail Returned as Undeliverable marked RTS. Mail originally sent to Barry Landon at ADC - OUACHITA RIVER UNIT P. O. Box 1630 Malvern, AR 72104 including #7 Magistrate Notice/Consent Form, #6 Case Transferred In - District Transfer. No new address available. New Address due by 7/21/2021. (cnn) |
| Filing 9 TEXT ONLY ORDER REGARDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY. After review of the Complaint, it is determined that the Plaintiff has submitted the Complaint on a form not approved for this district, the Complaint consists of 73 pages, and he has not clearly stated how each named Defendant violated his federal constitutional rights, and some of his claims may be frivolous. For this reason, Plaintiff is directed to submit an Amended Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is instructed NOT to attach grievances to the Amended Complaint and is instructed to limit the Amended Complaint to a total of 20 pages. The Clerk is directed to mail the Plaintiff a court-approved 1983 form.In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the Court: the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated;the name of the Defendant who violated the right;exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do;how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of the constitutional rights;and what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the misconduct of that Defendant. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362,371-72,377 (1976);Fed.R.Civ.P.8. Plaintiff must repeat this process for each person he has named as a Defendant. Plaintiff is CAUTIONED that he must affirmatively link the conduct of each named Defendant with the specific injury he suffered. If he fails to do so, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is a First Amended Complaint. The First Amended Complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety on the court-approved form. You may not refer back to any part of the original complaint. A First Amended Complaint supersedes, or takes the place of, the original Complaint. After amendment, the Court will treat the original Complaint as nonexistent. Any cause of action that was raised in the original Complaint is waived if it is not raised in the First Amended Complaint. This case shall be subject to dismissal if Plaintiff fails to return the Amended Complaint to the Court by the deadline. Amended Complaint due by 6/17/2021. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 27, 2021. (mlf) |
| Filing 8 TEXT ONLY ORDER REGARDING In Forma Pauperis Application. With his complaint, Plaintiff submitted an in forma pauperis (IFP) application. (ECF No. 1). However, the application is deficient because Plaintiff states he is incarcerated in the ADC-Ouachita River Unit in Malvern, Arkansas and his IFP appliction is from the ADC-North Central Unit in Calico Rock, Arkansas. For this reason, the Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a blank Prisoner IFP application. Plaintiff is given 21 days from the date of this Order to either return the completed application to this court for review and filing or pay the 350.00 dollar filing fee and 52.00 dollar administrative fee, a total of 402.00 dollars. This case shall be subject to dismissal for failure to obey an order of the Court if Plaintiff fails to return the completed IFP application or pay the 402.00 dollar filing fee by the deadline. Completed IFP due by 6/17/2021. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 27, 2021. (mlf) |
| Filing 7 Magistrate Notice/Consent Form. (mll) |
| Filing 6 Case transferred in from District of Arkansas Eastern; Case Number 4:21-cv-00449. Docket sheet received. |
| TEXT ONLY NOTICE: COMPLAINT REFERRED (42:1983) transferred in from Eastern District or Arkansas. (mll) |
Filing 5
ORDER directing the Clerk to immediately transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 5/26/2021. (lej) [Transferred from ared on 5/27/2021.]
|
|
Filing 4
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER denying Plaintiff's motion for service #3 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 5/25/2021. (lej) [Transferred from ared on 5/27/2021.]
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Service by Barry D London. (llg) [Transferred from ared on 5/27/2021.] |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Barry D London. (llg) [Transferred from ared on 5/27/2021.] |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Barry D London. (llg) [Transferred from ared on 5/27/2021.] |
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 Western 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.
