Jordan v. Chiaroo et al
| Victor L. Jordan, Sr. |
| Chiaroo, Mary, Anthony Sariani, King, Edge and John Doe |
| 3:2024cv00204 |
| February 14, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Victor A Bolden |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 5, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER Mr. Jordan's Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of property and his First Amendment claim for interference with legal mail based on the open letter from the Claims Commissioner, i.e., the claims against defendants Chiaroo, Mary, Edge, and Property Officer John Doe are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1). The First Amendment claims for denial of access to the courts and interference with legal mail regarding Notices of Electronic Filing ("NEFs") are DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).If Mr. Jordan wishes to attempt to replead his claims for denial of access to the courts and interference with legal mail regarding delivery of NEFs in order to attempt to state a viable claim, he may file an Amended Complaint by May 10, 2024.An Amended Complaint, if filed, will completely replace the Complaint and the Court will not consider any allegations made in the Complaint in evaluating any Amended Complaint. The Court will review any Amended Complaint after filing to determine whether it may proceed to service of process on any defendants named therein. If Mr. Jordan elects to file an Amended Complaint, the Complaint this Initial Review Order addressed will not proceed to service of process on any defendant. Mr. Jordan may not, however, include in the Amended Complaint any claims that have been dismissed with prejudice.If no Amended Complaint is filed by May 10, 2024, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/5/2024. (Rafla-Yuan, D)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. If you change your address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that you notify the court. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 2/20/2024. (Corriette, M.)
|
| Filing 8 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/14/2024.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 6
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Chief Judge on 6/22/2016.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 5
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/14/2024.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
| Filing 4 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 2/14/2024. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Victor L. Jordan, Sr. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Victor L. Jordan, Sr. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Chiaroo, John Doe, Edge, King, Mary, Anthony Sariani, filed by Victor L. Jordan, Sr. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Judge Victor A. Bolden and Judge Thomas O. Farrish added. (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.
