Paschal-Barros v. DelPeschio et al
| Kyle Lamar Paschal-Barros |
| James DelPeschio, William Mulligan, Angel Quiros and Daniel Dougherty |
| 3:2022cv01275 |
| October 12, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Maria E Garcia |
| Michael P Shea |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER. In light of the closure of this case, the #6 motion for temporary restraining order is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/29/2022. (Davis, Christina)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The #10 motion to voluntarily withdraw is hereby GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Clerk is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/28/2022. (Davis, Christina)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION to Voluntarily Withdraw by Kyle Lamar Paschal-Barros. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER: The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED as it does not meet the strict standard for such motions. See D. Conn. L.R. 7(c). The Court's denial of IFP status was not a discretionary ruling but was, instead, based on a mandatory statutory provision governing IFP applications by individuals who have previously had three cases dismissed, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g). So the plaintiff's financial situation, no matter how dire, does not permit the Court to grant him IFP status. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/9/2022. (Davis, Christina)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re #7 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kyle Lamar Paschal-Barros. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 7
For the reasons stated in the attached, the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. The Court notes that the complaint will be deemed received by the court on October 12, 2022, so long as the filing fee is submitted within the time allotted by this order. Accordingly, all further proceedings in the matter shall be held in abeyance for thirty (30) days pending the plaintiff's delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $402.00 (money order or bank check made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's Office, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, Connecticut, 06604. Failure to tender the filing fee within thirty days of this order will result in the dismissal of this action.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/1/2022. (Davis, Christina)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Kyle Lamar Paschal-Barros. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Attachments) (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/12/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER ON PRISONER ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 10/12/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/12/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kyle Lamar Paschal-Barros. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against James DelPeschio, Daniel Dougherty, William Mulligan, Angel Quiros, filed by Kyle Lamar Paschal-Barros.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Judge Michael P. Shea and Magistrate Judge Maria E. Garcia added. Motions referred to Maria E. Garcia (Oliver, T.) |
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.
