Hill v. Fort Leavenworth United States Disciplinary Barracks et al
| Steven E. Hill |
| Fort Leavenworth United States Disciplinary Barracks and FNU LNU |
| 5:2016cv03220 |
| November 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Topeka Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Sam A. Crow |
| David J. Waxse |
| Prison Condition |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| 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
14
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery 13 is denied. This case is dismissed as barred by the Feres doctrine. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 06/21/17. Mailed to pro se party Steven E. Hill by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing
6
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED: Plaintiff is granted until April 28, 2017, in which to show good cause, in writing, to the Honorable Sam A. Crow, United States District Judge, why Plaintiff's Complaint 1 should not be dismissed. Plai ntiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is provisionally granted. Plaintiff is directed to submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 03/13/17. Mailed to pro se party Steven E. Hill 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.
