Garcia v. Strickland et al
| Alberto Mario Garcia |
| Strickland, Astaphan Brando and Intake Officer |
| 9:2022cv80686 |
| May 2, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Rodney Smith |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 State Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REQUIRING FILING FEE OR FILING OF SUPPORTING SIX MONTH TRUST FUND ACCOUNT STATEMENT. The Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [DE #3 ] is denied. On or before June 25, 2022, Plaintiff shall either pay the full filing fee of $402.00 or submit the six-month prisoner account statement. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 6/1/2022. See attached document for full details. (Attachments: #1 IFP Form) (daa)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO PRO SE CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGANTS. Signed by Judge Rodney Smith on 6/1/2022. See attached document for full details. (daa)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Alberto Mario Garcia. (daa) |
| Filing 2 Judge Assignment to Judge Rodney Smith. (daa) |
| Filing 1 Complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983 against Astaphan Brando, Intake Officer, Strickland. Filing fee $ 402.00. IFP Filed, filed by Alberto Mario Garcia. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(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.
