Schibline v. Thomas et al
| Nathan Schibline |
| Rodney Dewayne Thomas, Lieutenant Amanda Arnold, Deputy Nolan Ake, Kevin East, Correctional Officer Zimmerman, CPL. Carpenter and Corporal Cody Rex |
| 5:2022cv05226 |
| November 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas |
| Fayetteville Office |
| Timothy L Brooks |
| Christy D Comstock |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
OBJECTION to #10 Report and Recommendations by Nathan Schibline. (tg)
|
|
Filing 10
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re #9 Amended Complaint filed by Nathan Schibline. Objections to R&R due by 1/3/2023. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on December 14, 2022. (lgd)
|
|
Filing 9
AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand as to #2 Complaint against Cody Rex, Zimmerman, Carpenter, Rodney Dewayne Thomas, filed by Nathan Schibline. Related document: #2 Complaint filed by Nathan Schibline.(lgd)
|
|
Filing 8
Magistrate Notice/Consent Form furnished. (lgd)
|
|
Filing 7
CLERK'S ORDER re PLRA Initial Fee directing ADC North Central Unit to collect from petitioner's prison account an initial partial filing fee of $7.82; thereafter to collect monthly payments from petitioner's prison account in amount equal to 20% of preceding month's income credited to account until $ 350 filing fee is paid in full (cc: AR Board of Corrections, Compliance Division; Department of Correction, Trust Fund & Centralized Banking Office; Fiscal Manager, AR Department of Community Correction). (lgd)
|
|
Filing 6
TEXT ONLY ORDER REGARDING COMPLAINT DEFICIENCY. In the Complaint, Plaintiff fails to describe how Lieutenant Arnold, Lieutenant Ake, and Lieutenant East violated his federal constitutional rights. To be liable under section 1983 each named Defendant must be personally involved in violating Plaintiff's federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff is directed to submit an Amended Complaint by November 28, 2022. The Clerk is directed to mail the Plaintiff a court-approved section 1983 form. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff must write short, plain statements telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the Defendant who violated the right; (3) exactly what the Defendant did or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of that Defendant is connected to the violation of Plaintiff=s constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of that Defendant=s conduct. 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, the allegations against that Defendant will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.The 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. Plaintiff may not incorporate 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 November 28, 2022, deadline. CLERK TO FOLLOW UP. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on November 3, 2022. (smg)
|
|
Filing 5
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Clerk is directed to collect the $350 filing fee from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is advised that he is required to immediately inform the Court of any change of address. If Plaintiff is transferred to another jail or prison or released, he shall have 30 days from the date of transfer or release in which to notify the Court of his new address. Plaintiff shall submit a change of address on a separate piece of paper entitled "Notice to the Court of Change of Address" and not include any motions or otherwise request relief in this document. The notice shall contain only information pertaining to the address change. Failure to inform the Court of an address change shall result in the dismissal of this case. Signed by Honorable Christy D. Comstock on November 3, 2022. (smg)
|
|
Filing 4
Case transferred in from District of Arkansas Eastern; Case Number 4:22-cv-01061. Docket sheet received.
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER directing the Clerk of the Court to immediately transfer Plaintiff's entire case file to the Western District of Arkansas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 11/2/2022. (ldb) [Transferred from ared on 11/2/2022.]
|
|
TEXT ONLY NOTICE: COMPLAINT REFERRED (42:1983) transferred in from Eastern District of Arkansas. (lgd)
|
|
Filing 2
COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Nathan Schibline. (llg) [Transferred from ared on 11/2/2022.]
|
|
Filing 1
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Nathan Schibline. (llg) [Transferred from ared on 11/2/2022.]
|
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.
