Franklin v. Beville et al
Jamal M Franklin |
James A Beville and Jack Campbell |
3:2018cv01388 |
August 15, 2018 |
US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
New Haven Office |
Middlesex |
Jeffrey A Meyer |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 21 ORDER The motion to reopen case (Doc. #20 ) is DENIED without prejudice for failure to explain why plaintiff needs the requested 90 days to file an amended complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/3/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 20 MOTION to Reopen Case by Jamal M Franklin. Responses due by 10/22/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 19 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE Executed Acknowledgment filed by Jamal M Franklin. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 18 JUDGMENT entered in favor of Jack Campbell, James A Beville against Jamal M Franklin.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Clerk on 8/31/2018.(Gutierrez, Y.) |
Filing 17 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging multiple claims against two defendants but without alleging facts that allow the Court to understand the basis for the claims. The complaint, for example, does not describe the titles or positions of the two defendants, does not describe in what context plaintiff had dealings with the two defendants, and does not state where the actions at issue took place. It appears from the complaint that it may relate to court proceedings in another jurisdiction but the complaint is very unclear. Because the complaint is essentially unintelligible without further factual detail, the Court hereby DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). This order is without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint by September 28, 2018. If plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, the complaint should allege facts that describe plaintiff's dealing with the two defendants, the titles or positions of the defendants, the approximate dates when they had dealings, the name of court and docket number for any case in which plaintiff had dealings with the defendants that forms the basis for plaintiff's complaint against them. The Clerk of Court shall close this case subject to re-opening if plaintiff files an amended complaint on or before September 28, 2018. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/30/2018.(Gutierrez, Y.) |
Filing 16 ORDER. The motion to seal (Doc. #14 ) is DENIED for failure to establish clear and compelling reasons that warrant sealing and in light of the Court's review of the proposed sealed materials that indicates that they principally concern letters of complaint for which there would not ordinarily be an expectation of privacy. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/30/2018. (Gutierrez, Y.) |
Filing 15 ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to seal medical records (Doc. #10 ) on the ground that no medical records have been profferred for sealing. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to keep his address confidential (Doc. #11 ) on the ground that the motion does not adequately allege facts that establish a basis for concern about safety. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. #12 ) on the ground that the motion does not allege facts with particularity to show why preliminary relief should be granted. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/29/2018. (Gutierrez, Y.) |
Filing 14 MOTION to Seal evidence by Jamal M Franklin. (Attachments: #1 Evidence)(Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 13 Letter from Jamal Franklin Dated 8/22/2018 (Attachments: #1 Evidence) (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 12 MOTION for Restraining Order by Jamal M Franklin. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 11 MOTION for confidential address by Jamal M Franklin. Responses due by 9/17/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 10 MOTION to Seal medical records by Jamal M Franklin. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 9 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jamal M Franklin (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 8 USM 285 forms together with Notice of Lawsuit/Request for Waiver of Service of Summons all documents and instructions mailed to IFP plaintiff to complete and return to Clerk's office. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 6 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, #1 Complaint filed by Jamal M Franklin, #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Jamal M Franklin Signed by Clerk on 8/22/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 6 ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/20/2018. (Gutierrez, Y.) |
Filing 5 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/15/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 4 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/15/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 10/14/2018 Discovery due by 2/14/2019 Dispositive Motions due by 3/21/2019 Signed by Clerk on 8/15/2018. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jamal M Franklin. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against James A Beville, Jack Campbell filed by Jamal M Franklin. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Fanelle, N.) |
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 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.