PILJAGIC v. BEEMAN et al
| DANIEL PILJAGIC |
| SCOTT BEEMAN, NICK OLDHAM, FIDELL MUHAMAD and WALTERS |
| 1:2023cv00753 |
| May 3, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Tim A Baker |
| Richard L Young |
| 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 June 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of DANIEL PILJAGIC, 167903. As of the issuance of this Order, the balance of the filing fee still due in this case is $336.67. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 6/15/2023 (Copies mailed per distribution list).(LBT)
|
| Filing 9 RECEIPT #5659 for partial filing fee in the amount of $13.33, paid by DANIEL PILJAGIC. (DJH) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #7 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis - The plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. #7 , is granted to the extent that the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of Thirteen Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($13.33). The plaintiff shall have through June 20, 2023, 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. Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by District Judge Richard L Young on 05/19/2023. (AAS)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff DANIEL PILJAGIC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(JRB) |
| Filing 6 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 5
ORDER DENYING AS PRESENTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - The plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dkt. [ #2 ], is denied as presented. The plaintiff's motion is not accompanied by a certified copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action on May 2, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2). Accordingly, the plaintiff shall have through June 2, 2023, to renew his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. To assist the plaintiff, the clerk is directed to send him a blank form motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, along with this copy of this Order. The plaintiff must complete the form motion and attach a copy of the transactions associated with his institution trust account for the 6-month period preceding the filing of this action. Copies to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by District Judge Richard L Young on 5/3/2023. (SWM)
|
| 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 DANIEL PILJAGIC. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(DRB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against SCOTT BEEMAN, FIDELL MUHAMAD, NICK OLDHAM, WALTERS, filed by DANIEL PILJAGIC. (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.
