PATTERSON v. ALLEN et al
| RODERICK STANDELL PATTERSON |
| TRENT ALLEN, MCKINNEY, COOPER, JOHN DOE #6, AUKER, HARMON, MACKIE, GOINS, COURTNEY, VEST, FAIR, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #5, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2 and BISHOP |
| 1:2025cv00261 |
| February 7, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Kellie M Barr |
| 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 February 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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. (CCG) |
| Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (KLS) (CCG) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (CCG) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff RODERICK STANDELL PATTERSON. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(CCG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against TRENT ALLEN, AUKER, BISHOP, COOPER, COURTNEY, FAIR, GOINS, HARMON, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #5, JOHN DOE #6, MACKIE, MCKINNEY, VEST, filed by RODERICK STANDELL PATTERSON. (No fee paid with this filing) (CCG) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
