FORD v. HANCOCK COUNTY INDIANA SHERRIFFS DEPARTMENT
| STEPHEN MICHAEL FORD |
| HANCOCK COUNTY INDIANA SHERRIFFS DEPARTMENT |
| 1:2022cv02449 |
| December 21, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Matthew P Brookman |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
Order Granting Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Denying Motion to Stay Proceedings - The Court has no reason to doubt Mr. Ford's statement that he has no funds to pay the filing fee. Rather than delay these proceedings, the Court grants Mr. Ford's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #2 . Mr. Ford has through March 1, 2023, to file a copy of his trust account statement, and the Court will then assess whether Mr. Ford owes an initial partial filing fee. Mr. Ford's motion to stay these proceedings for 120 days, dkt. #7 , is denied as moot. The Court will screen Mr. Ford's complaint in due course. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/30/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US mail. (JSR)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN MICHAEL FORD. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Your civil rights complaint has been received. You shall have through February 6, 2023, in which to correct the deficiencies as follows: Your motion to proceed in forma pauperis cannot be ruled on because you have not submitted a copy of the transaction history associated with your institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action. (Copy sent to plaintiff via US mail). (JRT) |
| 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. (Copy sent to plaintiff via US mail). (JRT) |
| Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (DRB) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DRB) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff STEPHEN MICHAEL FORD. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DRB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against HANCOCK COUNTY INDIANA SHERRIFFS DEPARTMENT, filed by STEPHEN MICHAEL FORD. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DRB) |
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
| Search for this case: FORD v. HANCOCK COUNTY INDIANA SHERRIFFS DEPARTMENT | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: STEPHEN MICHAEL FORD | |
| 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: HANCOCK COUNTY INDIANA SHERRIFFS DEPARTMENT | |
| 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.
