TIKAL v. INTERNAL REVENUE SVC et al
| ALAN DAVID TIKAL |
| INTERNAL REVENUE SVC, COMMISSIONER, IRS and IRS EMPLOYEES |
| 2:2023cv00128 |
| March 16, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| James Patrick Hanlon |
| M Kendra Klump |
| Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 Freedom of Information Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 12, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 58 - Having this day directed the entry of final judgment, the Court now enters FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 5/12/23.(JRB) |
Filing 9
ORDER DISMISSING CASE - Mr. Tikal has not paid the filing fee. Thus, the Court DISMISSES this case. Because of the early stage of this case, the dismissal is without prejudice. See Hill v. United States, 762 F.3d 589, 591 (7th Cir. 2014). Final judgment will issue by separate entry. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U SMail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 5/12/23.(JRB)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER DENYING MOTION AND REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE AND PAY FILING FEE - Mr. Tikal has filed is a "Motion to Retain Jurisdiction Filed Defensively." Dkt. #7 . The Court will not consider any motions until Mr. Tikal (1) explains why he omitted most of his litigation history from his in forma pauperis motion and (2) pays the $402 filing fee to the clerk of the district court. See dkt. #6 . Therefore, the Court DENIES Mr. Tikal's motion, dkt. #7 . Mr. Tikal has one more chance to do both of those things. Failure to do so by May 5, 2023, will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice. (SEE ORDER.) Copy sent to plaintiff via US mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 4/20/2023. (TPS)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Retain Jurisdiction filed Defensively, filed by Plaintiff ALAN DAVID TIKAL. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE - Plaintiff, Alan David Tikal, has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. #2 . But, because he appears to have "struck out" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), that motion is DENIED. Mr. Tikal is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE--that is, explain in writing--by April 14, 2023, why he should not be subject to sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice. Mr. Tikal shall have through April 14, 2023, to pay the $402 filing fee to the clerk of the district court. Failure to do so may also result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (SEE ORDER.) Copy sent to plaintiff via US mail. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 3/27/2023.(TPS)
|
| Filing 5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DRB) |
| Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (DRB) |
| Filing 3 *** PLEASE DISREGARD DOCKETED IN ERROR*** Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (DRB) Modified on 3/17/2023 (DRB). |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff ALAN DAVID TIKAL. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(DRB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SVC, IRS, IRS EMPLOYEES, filed by ALAN DAVID TIKAL. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 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.
