Jane Doe v. United States et al
| Jane Doe |
| United States and DCA 1976 |
| 2:2023cv04496 |
| June 8, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Wesley L Hsu |
| Karen E Scott |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 APPEALS STATEMENT REPRESENTATION re Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of #11 . (mat) |
| Filing 12 Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis to the 9th CCA re: Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, #11 filed for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. [Document forward to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.] (mat) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA filed by plaintiff Jane Doe. Appeal of Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, #10 Filed On: 7/6/23; Entered On: 7/6/23; Motion for In forma Paupers filed for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Motion for In forma Paupers filed for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (mat) |
Filing 10
ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (NON-PRISONER CASE) #6 by Judge Wesley L. Hsu. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Request is DENIED because the filer has the ability to pay. As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED because: The District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The action is frivolous or malicious. The action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As explained in the attached statement, because it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated.) (lom)
|
|
Filing 9
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motions (Dkt. 2, 5, and 7) by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for permission to e-file (Dkt. 2.) without prejudice to her renewing it later should she obtain permission to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for permission to use a pseudonym. (Dkt. 5.) Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 7), is DENIED as premature, without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing it later when permitted to do so by a future scheduling order. Denying #2 MOTION for Pro Se Electronic Filing; Denying #5 MOTION for Permission to Use Pseudonym; Denying #7 MOTION for Summary Judgment #7 . [SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.] (es)
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Wesley L. Hsu and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (car) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (car) |
| Filing 6 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (car) (car). |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF' S MOTION TO PROCEED ANONYMOUSLY filed by Jane Doe. (car) |
| Filing 4 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe (car) |
| Filing 3 Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (car) |
| Filing 2 APPLICATION for Pro Se Litigant to electronically file documents in a specific case filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (car) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed against Defendants Case assigned to Judge Wesley L. Hsu and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott, filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons) (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
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.
