Richardson v. Smith et al
| Maurice Richardson |
| Sgt Smith, Captain Dumas, Officer Hamilton, Sgt. Eddie Smith, Capt. William Dumas, Lt. McIntyre, Officer Dumas, Officer Donavan, Lt. McIntosh, Ashley Smith and Captain Smith |
| 2:2023cv02096 |
| July 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas |
| Mark E Ford |
| P K Holmes |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Magistrate Notice/Consent Form (jlm) |
Filing 3
ORDER that the matter has been provisionally filed as the undersigned finds that additional information is needed to rule on Plaintiff's IFP application. Specifically the Court requires the following information: completed IFP application. Failure to comply within the time period specified could result in summary dismissal for failure to obey a court order. ORDER DIRECTING that an Amended Complaint be filed. Amended Complaint and Completed IFP due by 8/9/2023. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on July 19, 2023. (jlm)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (42:1983) by Maurice Richardson. Motions referred to Mark E. Ford.(jlm) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT REFERRED (42:1983) against Dumas, Hamilton, Smith, filed by Maurice Richardson.(jlm) |
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.
