Tene Carr v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
Plaintiff: Tene Carr
Defendant: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation and Doe Defendants
Case Number: 2:2019cv09112
Filed: October 23, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Consuelo B Marshall
Referring Judge: John E McDermott
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 6, 2019 Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Tene Carr, upon Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation served on 11/20/2019, answer due 1/21/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were NOT executed upon the United States Attorneys Office which was NOT served. The Attorney Generals Office of the United States was NOT served. The officer agency or corporation was NOT served. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Jones, Nichelle)
November 26, 2019 Filing 9 REFUND OF $400.00 denied. Filing fee requesting for refund was paid under 2:19-cv-09094. #2 . (rdj)
October 30, 2019 Filing 8 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 as to Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation. (shb)
October 29, 2019 Filing 7 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Notice of Deficiency in Request to Issue Summons,, #5 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 filed by Attorney for Plaintiff Tene Carr. (Jones, Nichelle)
October 28, 2019 Filing 6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: Attachments # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, Attachment # 2 Proposed Summons and Attachment # 3 Notice of Interested Parties should not have been attached to Docket Entry No.1 Each document should have been filed separately. You are not required to take any action to correct this deficiency unless the Court so directs. (et)
October 28, 2019 Filing 5 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Request to Issue Summons RE: Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 . The following error(s) was found: The caption of the summons must match the caption of the complaint verbatim. If the caption is too large to fit in the space provided, enter the name of the first party and then write see attached.Next, attach a face page of the complaint or a second page addendum to the Summons. The summons cannot be issued until this defect has been corrected. Please correct the defect and re-file your request. (et)
October 28, 2019 Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. (et)
October 25, 2019 FILING FEE PAID for new civil case. Receipt No. 0973-24676736 for $400 filing fee. (Jones, Nichelle)
October 24, 2019 Filing 3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid #2 , Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: A case-initiating document was submitted without payment of the full filing fee. Within two business days of this notice, counsel must pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis; otherwise, the docket for this case number will be closed and no further filings will be permitted under this case number. The filing fee may be paid online by docketing the event Pay Filing Fee. Other error(s) with document(s): Application for Refund of Fees was erroneously e-filed in this case. There are no fees paid. (et)
October 23, 2019 Filing 2 APPLICATION for Refund of Fees Paid filed by Attorney for Plaintiff Tene Carr. (Jones, Nichelle)
October 23, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT with filing fee previously paid ($400.00 paid on 10/22/2019, receipt number 26L1RASM), filed by Attorney for Plaintiff Tene Carr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons, #3 Notice of Interested Parties) (Attorney Nichelle D Jones added to party Tene Carr(pty:pla))(Jones, Nichelle)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Tene Carr v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Doe Defendants
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tene Carr
Represented By: Nichelle D Jones
Represented By: Michael J Curls
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?