Stubbs v. Allison et al
| Kenneth Carl Stubbs |
| W.L. Montgomery, S. Felix, Lee Gray and Kathleen Allison |
| 3:2021cv00321 |
| February 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Ruben B Brooks |
| Todd W Robinson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 b |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
Notice of Document Discrepancies and Order Thereon by Judge Todd W. Robinson Accepting Document: Complaint and IFP, from Plaintiff Kenneth Carl Stubbs. Non-compliance with local rule(s), OTHER: Initial case filings (42 U.S.C. 1983 Complaint, Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, etc.) received by U.S. Mail and not properly e-filed in accordance with S.D. Cal. General Order 653A. Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 2/24/2021.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jmr)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kenneth Carl Stubbs. (jmr)(jrd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT With Jury Demand Against Kathleen Allison, W.L. Montgomery, S. Felix, Lee Gray, IFP Filed, filed by Kenneth Carl Stubbs. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibits A-D, #3 Envelope)The new case number is 3:21-cv-321-RBB. Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks is assigned to the case.[Case in Screening per 28 USC 1915] (jmr)(jrd) |
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 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.
