Hill v. Galipeau et al
| Kevin Lee Hill |
| Galipeau, Aramark Inc and IDOC Grievance Process Commissioner |
| WESTVILLE E-FILE(Court Use Only) |
| 3:2021cv00603 |
| August 16, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Jon E DeGuilio |
| Michael G Gotsch |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
Docket sheet to be distributed to Kevin Lee Hill #108193. (kms)
|
|
Filing 9
Letter from Kevin Hill requesting verification if paperwork was received. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (mrm)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING #7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. ORDERING Kevin Lee Hill, IDOC # 108193 to immediately pay $50.68 to the clerk in payment of the initial partial filing fee; ORDERING Plaintiff to pay to the clerk 20% of the money received for each calendar month during which $10.00 or more is received, until the $350.00 filing fee is paid in full; and DIRECTING the clerk to create a ledger for receipt of these funds and to send a copy of this order to each facility where the plaintiff is housed until the filing fee has been paid in full. Signed by Chief Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 9/13/2021. (Copy mailed to Inmate Trust Fund Acct. as directed in Order)(mrm)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Prisoner Trust Account Ledger attached) by Plaintiff Kevin Lee Hill. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(kms)
|
|
Filing 6
Consent to Receipt of Documents Through Prisoner Electronic Filing Program by Kevin Lee Hill. Pursuant to General Order 2018-1, documents submitted to the court for filing will generate a Notice of Electronic Filing that will constitute official service upon registered users of CM/ECF. If any parties to the case are not registered CM/ECF users, the Clerk of the Court will mail the document via U.S. Postal Service on behalf of the inmate. NOTE: The E-Filing Program does not affect the obligation of other parties to serve copies of documents in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (kms)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER DENYING with leave to file an amended complaint as described #4 Motion to Amend #1 Pro Se Complaint by Plaintiff Kevin Lee Hill. REMINDING Kevin Lee Hill that he has until 9/21/2021, to respond to the court's previous order (ECF 3); and CAUTIONING Kevin Lee Hill that if he does not respond by the deadline, this case may be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 8/30/2021. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(mrm)
|
|
Filing 4
MOTION to Amend #1 Pro Se Complaint by Plaintiff Kevin Lee Hill. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Amended Complaint, #2 Envelope)(kms)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER: Kevin Lee Hill is GRANTED until 9/21/2021 to respond to this order and CAUTIONED if he does not respond by the deadline, this case may be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr on 8/18/2021. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(bas)
|
|
Filing 2
RECEIPT of Exhibits to #1 Pro Se Complaint from Kevin Lee Hill. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(kms)
|
|
Filing 1
PRO SE COMPLAINT with injunctive relief against Aramark Inc, Galipeau, IDOC Grievance Process Commissioner, filed by Kevin Lee Hill. (No filing fee or IFP received) (Returned copy with case number to Hill) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(nae)
|
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.
