Smith v. United States of America et al
| Nathan Smith |
| United States of America, Michael Carvajal, James Devere, H. A. Rios, Tamyra Jarvis, (fnu) Rivas and B. Paloskey |
| 5:2022cv03005 |
| January 6, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Sam A Crow |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 APPEAL DOCKETED in 10CCA on February 10, 2022, and assigned Appeal No. 22-3016 re #9 Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment filed by Nathan Smith. (smnd) |
| Filing 10 PRELIMINARY RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to 10CCA re #9 Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment. (Attachments: #1 Preliminary Packet) (smnd) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #7 Memorandum and Order and #8 Judgment by Plaintiff Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (smnd) |
| APPEAL FEE STATUS: filing fee not paid re: Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment #9 on behalf of Plaintiff Nathan Smith. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY-NO DOCUMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TRANSACTION.) (smnd) |
| Filing 8 JUDGMENT regarding Memorandum and Order #7 dismissing matter. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 01/27/22. Mailed to pro se party Nathan Smith by regular mail. (smnd) |
| Filing 7 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed for lack of venue. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 01/27/22. Mailed to pro se party Nathan Smith by regular mail. (smnd) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Nathan Smith re #5 Notice and Order to Show Cause. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (smnd) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED: On or before January 25, 2022, plaintiff shall show cause why this matter should not be dismissed. The failure to file a timely response may result in the dismissal of this matter without additional prior notice. Signed by Senior U.S. District Judge Sam A. Crow on 01/11/22. Mailed to pro se party Nathan Smith by regular mail. (smnd) |
Filing 4
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees #2 is granted because plaintiff's trust fund account statement shows that he has insufficient funds to pay an initial partial filing fee. Notwithstanding this grant of leave, plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the filing fee and is hereby assessed $350.00. Plaintiff is required to make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's account. The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward payments from the prisoner's account to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 until the filing fees are paid. 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). The clerk is to transmit a copy of this order to plaintiff, to the finance office at the institution where plaintiff is currently confined, and to the court's finance office. Entered by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 01/07/22. Mailed to pro se party Nathan Smith by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (smnd)
|
| Filing 3 Letter to Clerk of the Court from Plaintiff Nathan Smith. (smnd) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 Inmate Account Statement) (smnd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (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 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.
