COLYER v. CHOTAK
Plaintiff: MARK A. COLYER
Defendant: SARAH M. CHOTAK and SARAH M. LHOTAK
Case Number: 1:2022cv01198
Filed: June 13, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Referring Judge: Doris L Pryor
Nature of Suit: Personal Property: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 2, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 2, 2022 Filing 11 Mail Returned as undeliverable. #10 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis sent to MARK A. COLYER. Attempted Not Known. (AKH)
July 25, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ENTRY ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Mark A. Colyer's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. #9 ). On June 17, 2022, the Court issued a Notice of Deficiency that informed Plaintiff that he must either pay the $402.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate that he lacked the financial ability to do so by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. #4 ). The Notice of Deficiency also informed Plaintiff that, because he is an inmate in custody, a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis must be accompanied by a copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of this action. Plaintiff was given until July 8, 2022, to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice to refile, and his request for additional time to provide his trust account statement is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of the form "Prisoner Request to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying the Full Filing Fee" to Plaintiff with this Order. Plaintiff is ordered to file his Prisoner Request to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying the Full Filing Fee with a copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the six-month period preceding the filing of this action no later than Friday, August 26, 2022. Plaintiff also filed a "Motion to Correct Spelling of Defendant's Name" and asked that the last name of Defendant be corrected to "Lhotak." (Filing No. #7 .) This Motion is GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to correct the last name of the Defendant on the docket to be Lhotak. (See Order). Copies sent pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/25/2022. (Attachments: #1 Blank Form: Prisoner Request to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Full Filing Fee) (AKH)
June 29, 2022 Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff MARK A. COLYER. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(AKH)
June 27, 2022 Filing 8 AFFIDAVIT of Indigency, filed by MARK A. COLYER. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(AKH)
June 27, 2022 Filing 7 MOTION to Correct Spelling of Defendant's Name, filed by Plaintiff MARK A. COLYER. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(AKH)
June 27, 2022 Filing 6 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by MARK A. COLYER. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(AKH)
June 27, 2022 Filing 5 NOTICE of Change of Address for MARK A. COLYER. Updated address on docket to Madison County Jail. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (AKH)
June 17, 2022 Filing 4 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Your civil rights complaint has been received. You shall have through 7/8/2022 in which to correct the deficiencies as follows: You must either pay the 402.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate that you lack the financial ability to do so by filing a motion for leave to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee (in forma pauperis). A form motion for leave to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee is being provided for your use. NOTE TO PRISONER - If you seek leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and you are a prisoner, your motion must be accompanied by a copy of the transactions associated with your institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action. (TRG)
June 15, 2022 Filing 3 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. (AKH)
June 14, 2022 Filing 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (JSR)
June 13, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against SARAH M. CHOTAK, filed by MARK A. COLYER. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope)(JSR)

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: COLYER v. CHOTAK
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MARK A. COLYER
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 ]
Defendant: SARAH M. CHOTAK
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 ]
Defendant: SARAH M. LHOTAK
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?