ASHFORD v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al
| TERRY ASHFORD |
| INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, LARRY VOLZ, DC PUBLIC LIBRARY POLICE, METROPOLITAN POLICE, STATE OF MARYLAND, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, LAUREL CITY POLICE, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY POLICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION and U.S. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY |
| 1:2019cv02417 |
| August 9, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the complain and this civil action are DISMISSED. This is a final appealable order. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/03/2019. (zad)
|
| Filing 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/03/2019. (zad) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by TERRY ASHFORD (zsb) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand filed by TERRY ASHFORD.(zsb) |
| Initiating Pleading & IFP Application Received on 08/09/2019. A copy of the docket sheet has been mailed to the address of record for the pro se party. (zsb) |
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.
