Gregory Franklin v. R. Franklin
| Gregory Franklin |
| R. Franklin |
| 2:2021cv03577 |
| April 26, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Kenly Kiya Kato |
| Consuelo B Marshall |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato: granting #10 REQUEST for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fee. It is further ORDERED that the prisoner-plaintiff owes the Court the initial filing fee of $350.00. An initial partial filing fee of $0.00 must be paid within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Court in accordance with this order. (hr)
|
| Filing 10 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Gregory Franklin. (shb) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. IT IS ORDERED THAT within twenty-one (21) days of the service date of this Order, Plaintiff choose one of the following three options: 1. Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint (see document for further details). (hr)
|
|
Filing 8
INITIAL CIVIL RIGHTS CASE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. (see document for details) (hr)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato: granting #6 REQUEST for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing Fee. It is further ORDERED that the prisoner-plaintiff owes the Court the initial filing fee of $350.00. An initial partial filing fee of $0.00 must be paid within 30 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, monthly payments shall be forwarded to the Court in accordance with this order. (hr)
|
| Filing 6 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Gregory Franklin. (dsb) |
|
Filing 5
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order re: Failure to File Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato: re NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES OR REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (CV-93) #2 . Plaintiff has neither paid the mandatory $402.00 filing fee, nor filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, which must include an authorization for disbursement of funds. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this lawsuit, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, he must (1) pay the full $402.00 filing fee; (2) file a request for in forma pauperis status; or (3) show cause in writing why he is unable to do so. (Attachments: #1 IFP Application 60P) (dts)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and referred to Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. (esa) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Deficiency. On 4/26/2021, the Court received, through the United States Mail, a complaint arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Please be advised that the Court and California State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC) are participants in a pilot project that requires all such documents to be scanned and submitted to the Court by electronic mail, General Order No. 18-02. Submission of this complaint by U.S. Mail violates the terms of General Order 18-02. To submit a complaint arising under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to the Court for filing, you must present it to designated LAC staff for scanning and emailing to the Court. If you are unable to comply with these procedures, you must submit with your complaint a motion for leave to file your documents by U.S. Mail that demonstrates good cause for your inability to submit your documents to the Court electronically. You must now re-submit your complaint to the Court electronically. You must submit for scanning an exact copy of the complaint you previously mailed to the Court; it cannot be modified in any way. You must include this notice on top of the complaint submitted for scanning. If your complaint is received in the Court's electronic mail box within two weeks from the date of this letter, your complaint will be deemed filed as of the date that appears on the envelope you originally sent via U.S. Mail. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (esa) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES OR REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (CV-93) (esa) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against defendant R. Franklin pursuant to 42:1983. Case assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and referred to Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, filed by plaintiff Gregory Franklin. (esa) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Gregory Franklin v. R. Franklin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Gregory Franklin | |
| 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: R. Franklin | |
| 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.
