Ortiz v. Birden
| Raymond Ortiz |
| Jennifer Birden |
| 3:2020cv00012 |
| January 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vanessa L Bryant |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER finding as moot #5 Motion for Permission to Participate in Electronic Filing in light of the Court's Order dismissing this matter with prejudice. 10 . Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/09/2020.(Diamond, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") [Dkt.2] and dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiff's affidavit in support of his IFP motion omits that Plaintiff previously filed at least 11 prior actions in this District concerning custody proceedings and visitation matters, each of which has been dismissed in the past year. See 3:19-cv-878-AVC, Dkt. 12 at 2, n. 2; see also 3:18-cv-614-AVC, Dkt. 55 at 12-13(dismissing claims that Plaintiff and his daughter were denied the right to worship [their] religion of choice). Plaintiff is admonished for wasting judicial resources and forewarned that the Court can impose penal sanctions for frivolous filings in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The Clerk is directed to close this matter. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/09/2020.(Diamond, Matthew)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER RE: Judge's Chambers Practices. Counsel are directed to read and comply with the Chambers Practices and Standing Orders prior to filing any document. So ordered Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/03/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/03/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 01/03/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 6
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 3/3/2020. Discovery due by 7/4/2020. Dispositive Motions due by 8/8/2020. Signed by Clerk on 01/03/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Raymond Ortiz. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 4 Consent to Electronic Notice by Raymond Ortiz. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 3 Appearance Self Represented Party by Raymond Ortiz. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Raymond Ortiz. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jennifer Birden, filed by Raymond Ortiz.(Fazekas, J.) |
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
| Search for this case: Ortiz v. Birden | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Jennifer Birden | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Raymond Ortiz | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
