Brown (PS) v. CDOC et al
Ra Brown |
CDOC, Core Civic, Moses Andre Stancil and SOTMP Mental Health Department |
1:2024cv00436 |
February 12, 2024 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Susan Prose |
Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. not a defendant) |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1915 Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (ECF No. #7 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's custodian shall disburse from Plaintiff's inmate account monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to this inmate account until Plaintiff has paid the total filing fee of $350.00. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). Interference by Plaintiff in the submission of these funds will result in the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff's custodian shall continue to disburse monthly payments from Plaintiff's inmate account until full payment of the filing fee has been paid to the Court, even after disposition of the case and regardless of whether relief is granted or denied. The Clerk of the Court shall not issue process at this time. The United States Marshals Service shall serve process on any remaining defendant(s) for whom personal service is required if the case is later drawn to a district judge or magistrate judge under D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1(c). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this order to the DOC_inmateaccounts@state.co.us. By Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 3/6/2024.(norlin, ) |
Filing 7 Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. by Plaintiff Ra Brown. (norlin, ) |
Filing 6 AMENDED Prisoner COMPLAINT against CDOC, Core Civic, SOTMP Mental Health Department, Moses Andre Stancil, filed by Ra Brown. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(norlin, ) |
Filing 5 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO CURE DEFICIENCIES Plaintiff Shall cure the deficiencies designated above within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Any papers that Plaintiff files in response to this order must include the civil action number on this order. Plaintiff shall obtain and utilize (with the assistance of a case manager or the facility's legal assistant) the court-approved form 1) Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, and 2) Prisoner Complaint/b<, along with the applicable instructions, available at www.cod.uscourts.gov. If Plaintiff fails to cure the designated deficiencies within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the action will be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal shall be without prejudice. The Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action (ECF No. 4) is denied, as Plaintiff has filed the incorrect form. By Magistrate Judge Susan Prose on 2/14/2024. (norlin, ) |
Filing 4 Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 In A Habeas Corpus Action by Plaintiff Ra Brown. (tgall, ) |
Filing 3 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. Text Only Entry. (tgall, ) |
Filing 2 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2254, filed by Ra Brown.(tgall, ) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CDOC, Core Civic, SOTMP Mental Health Department, Moses Andre Stancil, filed by Ra Brown. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(tgall, ) |
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.