Harvey v. Williams et al
| Levi Lloyd Harvey |
| Augustus E. Ross, Brian D. Arterburn, Steven A. Kenney, FNU LNU (1), Norman D. Williams, FNU LNU (3) and FNU LNU (2) |
| 5:2011cv03139 |
| July 21, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Topeka Office |
| Reno |
| Sam A. Crow |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
8
ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed and all relief is denied. Plaintiff's motion 5 for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees is provisionally granted for the sole purpose of dismissing this action. Plaintiff's motion 4 to appoint counsel is denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 6/19/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Levi Lloyd Harvey by regular mail.) (smnd)
|
|
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days in which to submit to the court an initial partial filing fee of $8.50. Any objection to this order must be filed on or before the date payment is due. The failure to pay the fees as required herein may result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. Within the same thirty-day period, plaintiff is required to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/13/2011. (Mailed to pro se party Levi Lloyd Harvey 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.
