Williams v. Williams
| Ruth Sarah Williams |
| Arden Dennis Williams |
| 1:2017cv22744 |
| July 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Miami Office |
| Miami-Dade (Office: Miami) |
| Marcia G Cooke |
| Jonathan Goodman |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 2, 2017. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Closing Case. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 11/2/2017. (tm) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying #9 Plaintiff's Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 8/7/2017. (jf00)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program by Ruth Sarah Williams. (pes) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER EXPEDITING SERVICE, (Expedited Service Deadline 9/29/2017.) Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/31/2017. (tm)
|
|
Filing 7
Order Requiring Joint Scheduling Report Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/31/2017. (tm)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO PRO SE LITIGANT Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/31/2017. (tm)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for Pretrial Non-Dispositive Matters Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/31/2017. (tm)
|
|
Filing 4
ENDORSED ORDER granting #3 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. USM Service NOT Ordered. Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 7/24/2017. (ase)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ruth Sarah Williams. (vmz) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (vmz) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Arden Dennis Williams. Filing fees $ 400.00. IFP Filed, filed by Ruth Sarah Williams. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(vmz) |
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: Williams v. Williams | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Arden Dennis Williams | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Ruth Sarah Williams | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
