Ghane v. Evercom Inc et al
| Hessam Ghane |
| Evercom Inc, Richard Falcone, Keith S Kelson, Robert Rae and Correctional Billing Services |
| 5:2008cv03001 |
| January 2, 2008 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Topeka Office |
| Leavenworth |
| Sam A. Crow |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
20
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motions 11 , 16 & 17 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied. Plaintiff's motion to temporarily withdraw his complaint is liberally construed by this court as seeking the voluntary dismissal of the complaint. The court grants this requested and dismisses the complaint without prejudice. ***Terminating Case. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 3/30/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Hessam Ghane by regular mail.) (smnd)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days to pay the initial partial filing fee of $33.00 or to show cause why plaintiff should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis without payment of that assessed fee. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days to show cause why the complaint should not be summarily dismissed as stating no claim for relief. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/12/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Hessam Ghane by regular mail.) (smnd)
|
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 Kansas 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.
