Williams v. Reddish et al
| Andrew L. Williams |
| B. V. Reddish, S. Thompson, Brian Scott, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3 and John Doe #4 |
| 3:2021cv00792 |
| August 16, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Marcia Morales Howard |
| Monte C Richardson |
| Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint and provide to the Court service copies for each named defendant by 11/9/2021; directions to the Clerk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 10/6/2021. (CAW)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and assessing the $350 filing fee; directions to the Clerk. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 8/25/2021. (CAW)
|
| Filing 3 PRISONER consent form and financial certificate by Andrew L. Williams. (RH) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Andrew L. Williams. (RH) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson. (RH). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4, B. V. Reddish, Brian Scott, S. Thompson with Jury Demand filed by Andrew L. Williams. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(no service copies)(RH) |
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 Florida Middle 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.
