MARSHALL v. MALLOT
| SHAWN MARSHALL |
| MALOTT and MALLOT |
| 1:2023cv00565 |
| March 31, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mario Garcia |
| James Patrick Hanlon |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 ENTRY - Plaintiff Shawn Marshall has filed a motion requesting the Court to correct the spelling of the defendant's name on the docket. Dkt. 11. Mr. Marshall's motion, dkt. [ #11 ], is granted. The clerk is directed to update the defendant's name on the docket to Mallot. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia on 5/22/2023. (SWM) Modified on 5/22/2023 (SWM). |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Correct Spelling of Defendant's Name, filed by Plaintiff SHAWN MARSHALL. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(LBT) |
| Filing 10 ENTRY - Plaintiff Shawn Marshall has filed a motion to waive his initial partial filing fee. Dkt. 9. On April 17, 2023, the Court granted Mr. Marshall's request to reconsider his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and waived his initial partial filing fee. See dkt. 8. Accordingly, Mr. Marshall's motion, dkt. #9 , is denied as moot. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 4/28/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Waive initial Partial Filing Fee, filed by Plaintiff SHAWN MARSHALL. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC) |
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER - Plaintiff's motion to reconsider, dkt. #7 , is granted to the extent that the Court reconsiders its previous ruling on his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. 6, and concludes that Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee. Although Plaintiff is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee, he remains responsible for paying the $350.00 filing fee in this case. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 4/17/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Reconsideration re #6 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff SHAWN MARSHALL. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(JDC) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER on Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #2 , is granted to the extent that the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Twenty Dollars and Six Cents ($20.06). See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). The plaintiff shall have through May 5, 2023, in which to pay this sum to the clerk of the district court (See Order). Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 4/10/2023. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. (DWH)
|
| 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 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DRB) |
| Filing 3 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (DRB) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff SHAWN MARSHALL. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(DRB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against MALOTT, filed by SHAWN MARSHALL. (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
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.
