Crenshaw v. Edmond et al
| Darryl Crenshaw |
| Edmond, Bowers and Daugherty |
| 3:2024cv00372 |
| March 18, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Omar A Williams |
| 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 March 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 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 3/18/2024. (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 2
ORDER: We received your Complaint which has been assigned case number 3:24-cv-00372. In order to proceed, the filing fee or a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must be submitted to the Court by 4/17/2024 or the case will be subject to dismissal. Fee information and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form may be found on the Court's website at ctd.uscourts.gov. Dismissal due by 4/17/2024. Signed by Clerk on 3/18/2024. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Bowers, Daugherty, Edmond, filed by Darryl Crenshaw. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Judge Omar A. Williams and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Reis, 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
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.
