McArthur v. Alexis et al
Alexander McArthur |
Alexis and Property Management |
3:2020cv01055 |
July 24, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
Stefan R Underhill |
Civil Rights: Other |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 USM 285 forms together with Notice of Lawsuit/Request for Waiver of Service of Summons OPTD, Electronic Filing Order, Standing Protective Order, Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, Consent to electronic notice by pro se litigant and Motion by pro se litigant to participate in electronic filing and all instructions mailed to IFP plaintiff to complete and return to Clerk's office. (Oliver, T.) |
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 #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Alexander McArthur, #1 Complaint filed by Alexander McArthur, #4 Electronic Filing Order, #5 Protective Order, #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 9/4/2020.(Oliver, T.) |
|
|
|
|
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Alexander McArthur. (Freberg, B) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Alexis, Property Management, filed by Alexander McArthur.(Freberg, B) |
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.