Hicks v. Sieminski et al
| Roland R. Hicks |
| John Sieminski, Brian Murphy, Wayne T. Choinski, Thersa Lantz, Ploce and Susan Hankins |
| 3:2008cv01012 |
| July 7, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Mark R. Kravitz |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1983 Civil Rights |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
19
PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. denying as moot 18 Motion for Judicial Action. All claims in the official capacities are DISMISSED. The Pro Se office shall mail waiver of service of process request packets to defendants Hankins, Lopez, Lantz, Siem inski, Murphy, Choinski and Polce in his or her individual capacity at his or her current work address. The Pro Se Office shall send a courtesy copy of the complaint, amended complaint and this ruling and order to the Ct Attorney General and the Dep t of Correction Legal Affairs Unit. The Pro Se Office shall send a written notice to the plaintiff of the status of this action, along with a copy of this order. Defendants shall file a response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss by 11/10/09. Discovery shall be completed by 3/30/10. All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by 4/30/10. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 9/1/09. (Corriette, M.)
|
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 Connecticut 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.
