KREILEIN v. CECIL et al
Plaintiff: ALAN KREILEIN
Defendant: CECIL and SMITH
Case Number: 1:2022cv02072
Filed: October 24, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Presiding Judge: Matthew P Brookman
Referring Judge: Tanya Walton Pratt
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT - Mr. Kreilein's motion to dismiss, dkt. #7 , is GRANTED. The Court accepts his motion as a notice of dismissal, and Mr. Kreilein's claims shall be dismissed without prejudice. In light of Mr. Kreilein's motion to dismiss, his motion for extension of time to pay the filing fee, dkt. #6 , is DENIED as MOOT. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the action on the docket. No judgment is required under these circumstances. Copies to be sent pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/14/2022. (AKH)
December 1, 2022 Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Plaintiff ALAN KREILEIN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(LF)
December 1, 2022 Filing 6 MOTION for Extension of Time, filed by Plaintiff ALAN KREILEIN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(LF)
October 28, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER DENYING #2 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - Mr. Kreilein's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #2 , is DENIED. He shall have through November 28, 2022, to pay the $402.00 filing fee for this civil action. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (See Order). Copies to be sent pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/28/2022. (AKH)
October 26, 2022 Filing 4 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. Copy to plaintiff by U.S. Mail. (MEH)
October 25, 2022 Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH)
October 24, 2022 Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff, ALAN KREILEIN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DJH)
October 24, 2022 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CECIL, and SMITH, filed by ALAN KREILEIN. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Envelope)(DJH)

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: KREILEIN v. CECIL et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ALAN KREILEIN
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: CECIL
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: SMITH
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?