Cox v. District Attorney Office et al
Plaintiff: Stanley Earl Cox
Defendant: Scott Jame, District Attorney Office, Joseph Harper and Ron Newquist
Case Number: 3:2019cv01322
Filed: July 15, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Presiding Judge: Anthony J Battaglia
Referring Judge: Barbara Lynn Major
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 15, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 15, 2019 Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Stanley Earl Cox. (tcf)
July 30, 2019 Filing 4 ***DOCKETED IN ERROR***CLERK'S JUDGMENT. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that IT IS ORDERED that:(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on his failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a).(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee in one lump-sum, or (2) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a completed prison certificate and/or a certified copy of his Inmate Trust Account Statement Report for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b).(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form "Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP" for his use and convenience. But if Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full, nor sufficiently completes and files a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of his 6-month Inmate Trust Account Statement Report within 45 days, this case will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), and without any further Order of the Court.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc) (sjt). Modified on 8/1/2019 (acc).
July 30, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER Denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. IT IS ORDERED that:(1) Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED without prejudice based on his failure to prepay the $400 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a).(2) Plaintiff is GRANTED forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order in which to re-open his case by either: (1) paying the entire $400 statutory and administrative filing fee in one lump-sum, or (2) filing a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, which includes a completed prison certificate and/or a certified copy of his Inmate Trust Account Statement Report for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2) and S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2(b).(3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a Court-approved form "Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to Proceed IFP" for his use and convenience. But if Plaintiff neither pays the $400 filing fee in full, nor sufficiently completes and files a renewed Motion to Proceed IFP, together with a certified copy of his 6-month Inmate Trust Account Statement Report within 45 days, this case will remain dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), and without any further Order of the Court. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 7/30/2019. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc) (sjt). IFP Form sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail (acc).
July 15, 2019 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Stanley Earl Cox. (jms) (jao).
July 15, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against District Attorney Office, Joseph Harper, Scott Jame, Ron Newquist, filed by Stanley Earl Cox.($400 Filing Fee, Fee Not Paid, IFP Filed) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)The new case number is 3:19-cv-1322-AJB-BLM. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia and Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major are assigned to the case.[Case in Screening per 28 USC 1915] (jms) (jao).

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: Cox v. District Attorney Office et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Scott Jame
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: District Attorney Office
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Joseph Harper
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ron Newquist
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stanley Earl Cox
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?