Jose Sanchez Jimenez v. Dept of Justice
| Jose Sanchez Jimenez |
| Dept of Justice |
| 2:2022cv03855 |
| June 3, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Percy Anderson |
| Pedro V Castillo |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Percy Anderson. More than thirty days have passed since the Court's Order issued and Plaintiff has still not paid the filing fee or submitted an IFP application. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (see document for further details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)
|
| Filing 8 NOTIFICATION from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of case number assigned and briefing schedule. Appeal Docket No. 22-55657 assigned to Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #6 as to Petitioner Jose Sanchez Jimenez. (hr) |
| Filing 7 FILING FEE LETTER issued as to petitioner Jose Sanchez Jimenez, re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals #6 . (mat) |
|
Filing 5
NOTICE OF DISCREPANCY AND ORDER: by Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo, ORDERING Duplicative Complaint and Notice of Appeal submitted by Petitioner Jose Sanchez Jimenez, received on 7/01/22, is not to be filed but instead rejected. Denial based on: It is unclear what relief Petitioner is requesting. (see document for further details) (hr)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by petitioner Jose Sanchez Jimenez. Appeal of Order, #4 Filed On: 6/13/22; Entered On: 6/14/22; Filing fee $ 505. BILLED. (mat) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE OR FILE IFP APPLICATION WITHIN 30 DAYS by Judge Percy Anderson. Plaintiff is ORDERED, within 30 days of the date of this order, to either (1) pay the $402 filing fee in full, or (2) file a full and complete application to proceed IFP. (see document for further details) (Attachments: #1 Blank IFP Request Form) (hr)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and referred to Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo. (car) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF FILING OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES OR REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (CV-93) (car) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against Dept of Justice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Case assigned to Judge Percy Anderson and referred to Magistrate Judge Pedro V. Castillo, filed by Jose Sanchez Jimenez. (car) |
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: Jose Sanchez Jimenez v. Dept of Justice | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Jose Sanchez Jimenez | |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent: Dept of Justice | |
| 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.
