GANAS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant: GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Plaintiff: WILLIAM LEWIS GANAS
Case Number: 1:2013cv00077
Filed: May 3, 2013
Court: Georgia Middle District Court
Office: Albany Office
County: Calhoun
Referring Judge: Thomas Q Langstaff
Presiding Judge: W. Louis Sands
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
May 13, 2013 6 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis only for the purpose of this dismissal. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 5/13/13 (wks)

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 Georgia Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GANAS v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: WILLIAM LEWIS GANAS
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 [ 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.