Prater v. Acosta
| Dallas Ray Prater, Jr. |
| R. Alexander Acosta |
| 7:2018cv00079 |
| July 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Pikeville Office |
| Powell |
| Karen K Caldwell |
| P SO |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 23, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Clerk's Note re #7 : Case transferred from Kentucky Eastern has been opened in Southern District of West Virginia as case 5:18-cv-01174, filed 07/23/2018. (RCB) |
Filing 7
ORDER: 1. This action is TRANSFERRED to USDC for SDWV, Beckley Division. 2. Prater's pending motions are DEFERRED for resolution by the transferee court. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 7/20/2018. (RCB)cc: COR, Prater via U.S. mail
|
|
Filing 6
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 on 5/6/2016. (RCB)cc: COR, pro se filer provided at Clerk's Office
|
| Filing 5 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 provided at Clerk's Office (Attachments: #1 Sample Caption)(RCB) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Dallas Ray Prater, Jr., pro se. Motions referred to PSO. (RCB) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Dallas Ray Prater, Jr., pro se. Motions referred to PSO. (RCB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Dallas Ray Prater, Jr., pro se (NO PROCESS REQUESTED). (Attachments: #1 Affidavit of Dallas Ray Prater, Jr.)(RCB) |
| Clerk's Note re #7 Transfer Order: Case extracted and electronically transmitted to the USDC/WVSD via CM/ECF. (CBD) |
| ***MOTION SUBMITTED TO PSO for review: re #3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Dallas Ray Prater, Jr., #4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Dallas Ray Prater, Jr. (RCB) |
| Conflict Check run. (RCB) |
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: Prater v. Acosta | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: R. Alexander Acosta | |
| 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: Dallas Ray Prater, 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 ] |
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.
