Serna v. Dart et al
| Ricardo Serna and John Doe |
| Tom Dart and Sgt. Rodriguez |
| 1:2020cv00206 |
| January 10, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Elaine E Bucklo |
| Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER: Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #3 is denied. If Plaintiff wants to proceed with this lawsuit, he must both: (1) pay the $400 filing fee; and (2) show good cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed based on apparent false statements in his in forma pauperis application (in other words, he must provide a written explanation for his actions so the Court may consider whether to allow him to proceed). If Plaintiff does not comply by April 20, 2020, this case will be summarily dismissed. Signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 2/20/2020. Mailed notice (pj, )
|
| Filing 4 MOTION by Plaintiff Ricardo Serna for attorney representation. (gcy, ) |
| Filing 3 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Ricardo Serna for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affidavit.(gcy, ) |
| Filing 2 PRISONER CIVIL Cover Sheet. (gcy, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 0 copies by Ricardo Serna. (Attachments). (No Envelope Postmark date ) (gcy, ) |
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 Illinois Northern 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.
