Elijah Lee Miller v. Haword Moseley et al
| Elijah Lee Miller |
| Haword E Moseley and David Foy |
| 2:2023cv06097 |
| July 20, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Maria A Audero |
| Mark C Scarsi |
| 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 August 4, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEES (PRISONER NON-HABEAS CASE) #2 by Judge Mark C. Scarsi. The Request is DENIED because: The action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. MD JS-6, Case Terminated. (rolm)
|
|
Filing 4
MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers): Order Regarding Notice of Interested Parties by Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero: See document for details. (Attachments: #1 Attachment CV-30) (es)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. (et) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees with Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Elijah Lee Miller. (et) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT filed against Defendants David Foy, Haword E Moseley pursuant to 42:1983. Case assigned to Judge Mark C. Scarsi and referred to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero., filed by Plaintiff Elijah Lee Miller. (et) |
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.
