Lozano v. Reighley et al
Plaintiff: Alfonso Lozano
Defendant: Arthur Stephens and Reggie Reighley
Case Number: 3:2019cv00884
Filed: May 10, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Presiding Judge: Jill L Burkhardt
Referring Judge: Dana M Sabraw
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 17, 2019 Filing 5 Summons Issued. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should print this summons and serve it in accordance with Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiffs not receiving notice electronically. (Attachments: #1 IFP Letter)(aef)
May 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER: 1) Granting #2 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and 2) Directing U.S. Marshal to Effect Service of Complaint and Summons pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) (ECF No. 2); DIRECTS the Acting Secretary of the CDCR, or his designee, to collect from Plaintiff's trust account the $60.21 initial filing fee assessed, if those funds are available at the time this Order is executed, and to forward whatever balance remains of the full $350 owed in monthly payments in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in Plaintiff's account exceeds $10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2); DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) and to forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each named Defendant; ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon the Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s provided to him. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 5/17/2019. (Order electronically transmitted to Secretary of CDCR) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef)
May 13, 2019 Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Alfonso Lozano. (jms)
May 10, 2019 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Alfonso Lozano. (jms)
May 10, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Reggie Reighley, Arthur Stephens, filed by Alfonso Lozano.($400 Filing Fee, Fee Not Paid, IFP Filed) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 CDCR Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:19-cv-884-DMS-JLB. Judge Dana M. Sabraw and Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening per 28 USC 1915] (jms)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lozano v. Reighley et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Arthur Stephens
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Reggie Reighley
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Alfonso Lozano
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?