SELANDER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

SELANDER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Petitioner:	DONALD STEPHEN SELANDER
Respondent:	INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Case Number:	1:2013cv02060
Filed:	December 19, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Denise K. LaRue
Presiding Judge:	Richard L. Young
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgement
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 4, 2014	Filing 5 ORDER denying Motion for Clarification of "Order to Reclassify" and "Reinstatement of Case Filings" - Mr. Selander's objections to the Order are DENIED and OVERRULED. This magistrate judge had and has authority to issue the Order. The Order is confirmed and the reclassification of this case and reassignment of judges stands. The Petition is, and has been, construed as his complaint in his civil action. Mr. Selander has not paid the civil filing fee as ordered. He shall pay the usual civil filing fee, less the miscellaneous filing fee he has already paid, no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 15, 2014 or risk dismissal of his case. Mr. Selander is hereby ORDERED to not submit any more filings in the miscellaneous cause, No. 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL. All filings hereinafter shall be made only in the civil cause, No. 1:13-cv-2060-RLY-DKL. Further filings in the miscellaneous case risk sanctions for contempt of court, including dismissal of the civil cause and additional penalties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/4/2014. Copy Mailed. (JD)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 4, 2014

Filing 5 ORDER denying Motion for Clarification of "Order to Reclassify" and "Reinstatement of Case Filings" - Mr. Selander's objections to the Order are DENIED and OVERRULED. This magistrate judge had and has authority to issue the Order. The Order is confirmed and the reclassification of this case and reassignment of judges stands. The Petition is, and has been, construed as his complaint in his civil action. Mr. Selander has not paid the civil filing fee as ordered. He shall pay the usual civil filing fee, less the miscellaneous filing fee he has already paid, no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 15, 2014 or risk dismissal of his case. Mr. Selander is hereby ORDERED to not submit any more filings in the miscellaneous cause, No. 1:13-mc-134-WTL-DKL. All filings hereinafter shall be made only in the civil cause, No. 1:13-cv-2060-RLY-DKL. Further filings in the miscellaneous case risk sanctions for contempt of court, including dismissal of the civil cause and additional penalties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 3/4/2014. Copy Mailed. (JD)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SELANDER v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: DONALD STEPHEN SELANDER
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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.

Why Is My Information Online?