Dickerson-Seamster v. Deparment of FSSA
| Deborah R Dickerson-Seamster and Deborah Renay Dickerson-Seamster |
| Deparment of FSSA |
| 2:2018cv00479 |
| December 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Joseph S Van Bokkelen |
| Andrew P Rodovich |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 28, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER DENYING #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Deborah Renay Dickerson-Seamster; DISMISSING #1 Pro Se Complaint filed by Deborah Renay Dickerson-Seamster; GRANTING the plaintiff until 2/25/2019 to file an amended complaint, accompanied by a new petition to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs or the filing fee; and CAUTIONING plaintiff that if she does not respond by the above deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 1/28/19. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Deborah R Dickerson-Seamster. (rmf) |
| Filing 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT with 1 copies of summons forms and 1 copies of USM-285 forms against Deparment of FSSA filed by Deborah R Dickerson-Seamster. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 USM - 285 Form)(rmf) |
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 Indiana 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.
