Grissom v. Stanton et al
Plaintiff: Clarence E. Grissom, Jr.
Defendant: Danny Stanton, Marlene Able and Karen Rohling
Case Number: 5:2010cv03134
Filed: June 22, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office: Topeka Office
County: Pawnee
Presiding Judge: Sam A. Crow
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 51 ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's third motion 46 to appoint counsel on appeal and third motion 49 to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied. This separate appeal 45 is not taken in good faith. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 3/15/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Clarence E. Grissom by regular mail.) (smnd)
November 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 2 to proceed without prepayment of fees is granted. This action is dismissed on account of plaintiff's failure to show cause as previously ordered by the court and for the reasons stated in the court 9;s order dated September 15, 2010. Plaintiff's motion 25 for the appointment of counsel on interlocutory appeal and plaintiff's other pending motion 30 for the appointment of counsel are denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/09/10. (smnd)
September 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days in which to satisfy the filing fee prerequisites for this action by either providing the certified statement of his inmate account for the appropriate six-month period or paying the full filing fee o f $350.00. Within that same thirty-day period, plaintiff must file a single "Response" in which he shows cause why this action should not be dismissed for the reasons stated herein; or, in the alternative, an "Amended Complaint&q uot; that complies with this Order and the federal and local rules. Plaintiff's motions 3 & 16 to appoint counsel, and all other pending motions (Docs. 4-22), except plaintiff's motion 2 to proceed without fees, are denied without prejudice. The clerk is directed to remove Danny Stanton and Marlene Able from the docket sheet for the reason they were not named in the caption of the Complaint. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/15/10. (smnd)
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Grissom v. Stanton et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Clarence E. Grissom, Jr.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Danny Stanton
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Marlene Able
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Karen Rohling
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?