(PC) Litovsky v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
| Michael Litovsky |
| California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, L. Lundy, T. Valdez and H. Hoseley |
| 1:2023cv00465 |
| March 28, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Gary S Austin |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER to Submit Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or Pay Filing Fee Within 45 Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/30/2023. (Attachments: #1 IFP Application) (Rivera, O)
|
|
SERVICE BY MAIL: #4 Order served on Michael Litovsky. (Rivera, O)
|
|
Filing 3
DOCUMENT(S) SERVED ELECTRONICALLY: #2 Prisoner New Case Documents for Magistrate Judge as Presider served on CAC. (Maldonado, C)
|
|
Filing 2
PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. E-Filing Notice issued re complaint filed *3/28/2023*. Consent or Decline due by 5/1/2023. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form, #2 E-Filing Notice) (Maldonado, C)
|
|
Filing 1
(1983) PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT against California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, H. Hoseley, L. Lundy, T. Valdez by Michael Litovsky. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Maldonado, C)
|
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 Eastern 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.
