SMITH v. NADLER et al
| CHARMANE SMITH |
| JOHN A. HOUSTON, EMMET SULLIVAN, COLLEEN MCMAHON, JERROLD NADLER, ANN M. DONNELLY and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 1:2019cv01639 |
| June 3, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER DISMISSING PRO SE CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Ordered that the application of the plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. Plaintiff's motion for service by the U.S. Marshall Service #3 is DENIED as moot. This is a final appealable Order. Pro Se party has been notified by first class mail. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 07/02/2019. (zsb)
|
| Filing 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 07/02/2019. (zsb) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Service by the U.S. Marshall Service by CHARMANE SMITH (zeg) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by CHARMANE SMITH (zeg) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ANN M. DONNELLY, JOHN A. HOUSTON, COLLEEN MCMAHON, JERROLD NADLER, EMMET SULLIVAN with Jury Demand filed by CHARMANE SMITH.(zeg) |
| Initiating Pleading & IFP Application Received on 6/3/2019. A copy of the docket sheet has been mailed to the address of record for the pro se party. (zeg) |
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 District Of Columbia 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.
