Lacy v. Moore
| Daederick Lacy |
| Lt. Moore |
| 7:2018cv00093 |
| August 29, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| P SO |
| Gregory F VanTatenhove |
| Prisoner Petitions (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 22, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER: 1. This matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with an order of the Court. 2. Lacy's pending Motion for Injunctive Relief (R. #5 ) is DENIED as moot; and 3. This matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 10/22/2018. (TDA) cc: Lacy via US Mail
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Injunctive Relief by Daederick Lacy pro se. Motions referred to P SO. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-Description of Incident, #2 Declaration of Michael Hartley, #3 Envelope Postmarked 9-17-18)(MJY) |
| ***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: re #5 MOTION for Order by Daederick Lacy (MJY) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: 1. Clerk is DIRECTED to send Lacy a form Civil Rights Complaint, which Lacy must complete and return to the Court; 2. Clerk is further DIRECTED to send Lacy an Affidavit of Assets/IFP Application and Certificate of Inmate Account; 3. He must either pay $350.00 filing fee and $50.00 administrative fee or (1) have Certificate of Inmate Account certified by prison staff, (2) complete the Affidavit of Assets/IFP Application, and (3) file both documents with Court; 4. Lacy must take these steps within 30 days, or his case will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove on 9/4/2018. (Attachments: #1 EDKY Form 520, #2 Form AO-240, #3 EDKY Form 523)(RCB)cc: COR, Lacy w/EDKy 520, AO-240 & EDKy 523 via U.S. mail
|
| Filing 2 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 Page) (TDA) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT referred to Judge (No filing fee paid), filed by Daederick Lacy pro se. (Attachments: #1 Envelope Postmarked 8/27/18) (TDA) |
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: #1 Complaint; no fees paid nor motion ifp filed. (TDA) |
| Conflict Check run. (TDA) |
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: Lacy v. Moore | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Daederick Lacy | |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent: Lt. Moore | |
| 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.
