Hayes, Cordney Mallory v. Sabillon et al
| Cordney Mallory Hayes |
| Edwin Sabillon and Samuel Carpentar |
| 4:2024cv10019 |
| February 28, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Darrin P Gayles |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
PPAPERLESS ORDER denying #5 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's motion does not challenge this Court's conclusion that the instant action is barred by res judicata. Plaintiff essentially seeks reconsideration of the dismissal with prejudice of his prior action, Case No. 24-cv-10014-WPD. His motion therefore presents no grounds for reconsideration of this Court's dismissal. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 3/21/2024. (sil)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #4 Order Dismissing/Closing Case by Cordney Mallory Hayes. (cqs) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER Dismissing Complaint Closing Case. (With Prejudice) Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 2/28/2024. See attached document for full details. (cqs)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Cordney Mallory Hayes. (kma) |
| Filing 2 Judge Assignment to Judge Darrin P. Gayles (kma) |
| Filing 1 Complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against Samuel Carpentar, Edwin Sabillon. Filing fee $ 405.00 (IFP Motion filed), filed by Cordney Mallory Hayes.(kma) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
