Antwone Stokes v. Los Angeles Sheriff dept et al
| Antwone Stokes |
| Los Angeles Sheriff dept, SGT Taylor, Young, Palencia and Placios |
| 2:2023cv01294 |
| February 15, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Alicia G Rosenberg |
| Otis D Wright |
| 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 March 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO ADD DOCUMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Antwone Stokes. (kl) |
| Filing 4 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On February 15, 2023, Antwone Stokes ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se civil rights Complaintand an accompanying request to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Request") #1 , #2 . The IFP Request is incomplete as it does not include a certificate of authorized officer or a certified copy of Plaintiffs prison trust account statement for the last six months. Accordingly, within THIRTY (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff is directed to: (1) Refile a fully completed CV-60P on this Courts updated form, accompanying this Order, including the required certificate of authorized officer and a certified copy of Plaintiff's prisoner trust account statement for the last six months; OR (2) Pay the full filing fee of $402.00. Moreover, at the end of the Complaint, Plaintiff requests that the Clerk of the Court add his attorney's contact information to the docket and to the docket of all his pending cases. (ECF No. 1 at 10.) The Court takes notice of its own files and notes that Plaintiff filed a letter indicating he retained an attorney in case No. 2:22-cv-04953-ODW-AGR and the Court provided him additional time to file a request for substitution of counsel and a proposedapproval order. However, no attorney appeared on Plaintiffs behalf, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Courts other instructions and orders. Accordingly, the case was dismissed on February 14, 2023. Plaintiff filed the same letter indicating he retained an attorney in case No. 2:22-cv-09324-ODW-AGR, and, on February 15, 2023, the Court again directed Plaintiff to filea request for substitution of counsel and a proposed approval order. To date, no attorney has appeared on Plaintiff's behalf in that case, either. In an abundance of caution, and in addition to the above instructions, if Plaintiff has retained counsel the Court directs Plaintiff to do the following within twenty (20) days of the date of this order: (1) File a request for approval of substitution of counsel, Form G-01, accompanying this order; AND (2) File an order on request for approval of substitution of counsel, Form G-01 ORDER, accompanying this order. If Plaintiff does not comply with these instructions, the case will be dismissed without prejudice. (lc) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. (ghap) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff Antwone Stokes. (ghap) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against Defendants Los Angeles Sheriff dept, Palencia, Placios, Taylor, Young pursuant to 42:1983. Case assigned to Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia G Rosenberg., filed by plaintiff Antwone Stokes. (ghap) |
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
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.
