Stacey v. Monroe County Detention Center Medical Services et al
| Sean Michael Stacey |
| Monroe County Detention Center Medical Services and Monroe County Detention Center Dental Services |
| 4:2022cv10072 |
| August 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Roy K Altman |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER. The Complaint DE #1 is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). See White, 947 F.3d at 1377 ([A] prisoner with three strikes under Section 1915(g) is no different than any other non-IFP prisoner. A three-strike prisoner thus faces the fate that any non-IFP prisoner faces when the prisoner fails to pay the filing fee up front: dismissal without prejudice.). The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 8/30/2022. See attached document for full details. (ebz)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sean Michael Stacey. (daa) |
| Filing 2 Judge Assignment to Judge Roy K. Altman. (daa) |
| Filing 1 Complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against Monroe County Detention Center Dental Services, Monroe County Detention Center Medical Services. Filing fee $ 402.00. IFP Filed, filed by Sean Michael Stacey.(daa) |
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
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.
