GONZALES v. CONDE et al
| LUIS GONZALES |
| CHRISTINA COOKE, JOSE CONDE, JOEL LYTTLE and MICHAEL OSBURN |
| 1:2021cv00841 |
| April 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mario Garcia |
| James R Sweeney |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 25, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 RECEIPT #IP074138 for partial filing fee in the amount of $16.15, paid by LUIS GONZALES. (DJH) |
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS #7 - The plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #7 , is granted to the extent that the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Sixteen Dollars and Fifteen Cents ($16.15). See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1)(A). The plaintiff shall have through May 20, 2021, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court. The plaintiff is informed that after the initial partial filing fee is paid, he will be obligated to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income each month that the amount in his account exceeds $10.00, until the full filing fee of $350.00 is paid. 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). After the initial partial filing fee is received, a collection order will be issued to the plaintiff and his custodian. The complaint will be screened following payment of the initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 1915A. (Copy to Financial) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 4/20/2021. (JDC)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff LUIS GONZALES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - Offender Trust System Transaction History Inquiry)(AKH) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #3 , is denied as presented because it is not supported with a completed trust fund account statement. The plaintiff shall have through May 6, 2021, in which to renew his motion and provide a complete copy of his trust fund account statement for the six-month period preceding this action, April 5, 2021. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 4/7/2021. (JDC)
|
| Filing 5 NOTICE to Pro se Litigant - The following information is provided to pro se litigants to inform them about rules and procedures governing how they communicate with the Court. (TMC) |
| Filing 4 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff LUIS GONZALES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit - Transaction history)(REO) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against JOSE CONDE, CHRISTINA COOKE, JOEL LYTTLE, MICHAEL OSBURN, filed by LUIS GONZALES. (No fee paid with this filing) (REO) |
| Filing 1 CONSENT to Prisoner E-Service by LUIS GONZALES located at PENDLETON CF. Pursuant to General Order 2013-1, documents submitted by LUIS GONZALES 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. (REO) |
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 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.
