Wang v. Quiros et al
| Lishan Wang |
| Angel Quiros, Nick Rodriguez, Rollin Cook, Kenneth Butricks, Kristine Barone, Marie Charles, K. Shea, R. Richeson, Naqvi, Caroline, Michelle, Tutu, Harmon, Scholtz, Boyd, Rivera, Cooper, Rodriguez and Carbone |
| 3:2021cv01133 |
| August 24, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Alfred V Covello |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Kristine Barone, Marie Charles, Rollin Cook, Harmon, Angel Quiros, R. Richeson, Nick Rodriguez, K. Shea, filed by Lishan Wang.(Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 16
MOTION for Extension of Time until 30 Days to Prepare an Amended Complaint by Lishan Wang. (Freberg, B)
|
|
Filing 15
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on 10/4/2021.(Alexander, R.)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER denying as moot #13 Motion for Extension of Time to file Prisoner's IFP Application in light of the grant of IFP at ECF 9 ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying #6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; GRANTING #8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis.. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 9/23/21. (Payton, R.)
|
|
Filing 13
MOTION for Extension of Time to file Prisoner's IFP Application by Lishan Wang. (Payton, R.)
|
|
Filing 12
Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Lishan Wang. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 11
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Lishan Wang. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Prisoner's IFP Application by Lishan Wang. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying #6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; granting #8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 9/17/21. (Payton, R.)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Lishan Wang. (Carr, Dave)
|
|
Filing 7
Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Lishan Wang. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Lishan Wang. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 5
Notice to petitioner re: Insufficiency #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. You must submit the attached Prisoner's IFP application sent to you via U.S. Mail. If insufficiency not corrected Dismissal due by 9/21/2021 Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 8/31/21.(Payton, R.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on 8/24/2021.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 3
Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 8/24/2021.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 2
PRISCS - MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Lishan Wang. (Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 1
PRISCS - COMPLAINT against Kristine Barone, Boyd, Kenneth Butricks, Carbone, Caroline, Marie Charles, Rollin Cook, Cooper, Harmon, Michelle, Naqvi, Angel Quiros, R. Richeson, Rivera, Rodriguez, Nick Rodriguez, Scholtz, K. Shea, Tutu, filed by Lishan Wang. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit One, #2 Exhibit Two, #3 Exhibit Three, #4 Exhibit Four, #5 Exhibit Five, #6 Envelope One, #7 Envelope Two, #8 Envelope Three)(Bozek, M.)
|
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.
