Chang v. Rout et al
| Meng Uoy Chang |
| David Rout, Homeward Alliance Inc., Murphy Center LLC and William Eugene Gilmore, Jr. |
| 1:2024cv00187 |
| January 22, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Philip A Brimmer |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/18/2024. ORDERED that, on or before April 1, 2024, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond to the order by that deadline will result in dismissal of this case. ORDERED that plaintiff's letter [Docket No. #11 ], construed as a motion for an extension of time, is DENIED. (jtorr, )
|
| Filing 11 Ex Parte Applaration [sic] and Declaration for Order Extending Time to 5-13-2024, filed by Plaintiff Meng Uoy Chang. (jtorr, ) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/26/2024. ORDERED that, on or before March 15, 2024, plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed due to the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (jtorr, )
|
| Filing 9 CASE REASSIGNED Pursuant to #8 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge. All parties do not consent. This case is randomly reassigned to Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer and drawn to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak for all further proceedings. All future pleadings should be designated as 24-cv-00187-PAB. (Text Only Entry)(jrobe, ) |
| Filing 7 Letter from Meng Uoy Cheng re claim. (pklin, ) |
| Filing 8 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Plaintiff Meng Uoy Chang. All parties do not consent. (pklin, ) |
| Filing 6 CERTIFICATE of Mailing/Service re 2 Complaint, 5 Minute Order sent to Meng Uoy Chang at PO Box 855 Wellington, CO 80549. (jrobe, ) |
|
Filing 5
MINUTE ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff's Complaint appears to contain the birth date of an individual involved in the matter on page 4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49.1, in a filing with the court that contains an individual's birth date, the filing party may only include the year of the individual's birth. Fed. R. Civ. P. 49.1(a)(2). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is instructed to retain #1 Complaint under Level One restriction. On or before 2/21/2024, Plaintiff is ordered to file a publicly viewable copy of the Complaint that redacts the birth date on page 4. The Clerk of Court is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, as well as a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint in order to allow Plaintiff to easily redact the information at issue. SO ORDERED, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 1/31/2024. Text Only Entry (stvlc4, )
|
| Filing 4 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1, direct assignment of civil actions to full time magistrate judges. No Summons Issued. (blaws) |
| Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Text Only Entry. (blaws) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against William Eugene Gilmore, Jr, Homeward Alliance Inc., Murphy Center LLC, David Rout (Filing Fee: $405.00, Receipt Number: 109524), filed by Meng Uoy Chang. (Public Text Only Entry for Restricted Document #1 filed 01/22/2024) (blaws) |
| Filing 1 RESTRICTED DOCUMENT - Level 1: Complaint by Plaintiff Meng Uoy Chang. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (blaws) |
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 Colorado 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.
