Chatfield v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government
Rausel Lincoln Chatfield |
Lexington Fayette Urban County Government |
5:2019cv00258 |
June 24, 2019 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
Claria Horn Boom |
P SO |
Civil Rights: Other |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 7 JUDGMENT: 1. Plaintiff Rausel Lincoln Chatfields #1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. This action is STRICKEN from the Courts docket. 3. This is a FINAL and APPEALABLE Judgment, and there is no just cause for delay. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 7/18/2019.(JJ)cc: Pro Se pltf via US Mail |
Filing 6 ORDER: 1. Plaintiff's #1 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 3. The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 7/18/2019.(JJ)cc: Pro Se Pltf via US Mail |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF FILING Exhibit E to Complaint by Rausel Lincoln Chatfield, pro se, re #1 Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope - Post marked 6/25/19)(JJ) |
Filing 4 STANDING ORDER re: Disclosure of Contact Information: 1. pro se litigants must provide current telephone number, residential address, & if different, mailing address. 2. pro se litigants must provide written notice of change of residential address, & if different, mailing address. 3. Clerk file copy of Order in all non-prisoner pro se actions. Failure to provide required information or change of address may result in appropriate sanctions. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell (SLH)cc: COR |
Filing 3 IMPORTANT NOTICE to Pro Se Filer: Information relating to pro se filings and F.R.Civ.P. 5.2 requiring personal identifiers be partially redacted from documents filed with the court. #Click here for more information on the rules. It is the sole responsibility of counsel and the parties to comply with the rules requiring redaction of personal data identifiers.cc: pro se filer via U.S. Mail (Attachments: #1 sample caption)(SLH) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT (NO PROCESS REQUESTED). ( Filing fee $400; receipt number 5027847), filed by Rausel Lincoln Chatfield. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit List, #2 Exhibit A- Email correspondence, #3 Exhibit A1-Comments exhibit form FCBA, #4 Exhibit E and F- Copy of probate filing, #5 Exhibit G- Corrections to newspaper, #6 Receipt)(SLH) Modified text on 6/24/2019 (SLH). (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/28/2019: #7 Exhibit E - Enewspapaer Link) (JJ). |
Conflict Check run. (SLH) |
***FILE SUBMITTED TO PSO for review: #1 Complaint, (SLH) |
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 Kentucky Eastern 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
Search for this case: Chatfield v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Lexington Fayette Urban County Government | |
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 ] |
Plaintiff: Rausel Lincoln Chatfield | |
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.