GARCIA v. BIDEN et al
| MIGUEL ANTONIO GARCIA |
| PETER MCNEILLY, JOE BIDEN, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, CONOR FLANIGAN, RAYMOND MOORE, JAMES ANDERSON, BETH GIBSON, JARED POLIS and CLARK SMITH |
| 1:2021cv01544 |
| June 7, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights (Other) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DISMISSING PRO SE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ordered that the application of the plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. This is a final appealable Order. Pro Se party has been notified by first class mail. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 6/14/2021. (adh, )
|
| Filing 3 PRISONER TRUST FUND ACCOUNT STATEMENT for period of six months by MIGUEL ANTONIO GARCIA (adh, ) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by MIGUEL ANTONIO GARCIA. (adh, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against JAMES ANDERSON, JOE BIDEN, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, CONOR FLANIGAN, BETH GIBSON, PETER MCNEILLY, RAYMOND MOORE, JARED POLIS, CLARK SMITH filed by MIGUEL ANTONIO GARCIA. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(adh, ) |
| Initiating Pleading & IFP Application Received on 6/7/2021. A copy of the docket sheet has been mailed to the address of record for the pro se party. (adh, ) |
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.
