Byford v. Hilton et al
| Robert Earl Byford |
| Unknown Deputies and William Hilton |
| 1:2019cv00277 |
| March 4, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana |
| Dee D Drell |
| Joseph H L Perez-Montes |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER No 1 for cases assigned to Judge Dee D Drell sent to counsel of record. (Plan of Work - Compliance Deadline set for 5/3/2019.)(crt,Roaix, G) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW FINDING: Having reviewed the pleadings, and any amended pleadings, the court finds that subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to: 28 U.S.C. section 1331. This finding is preliminary and may be reconsidered sua sponte or on appropriate motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 3/6/2019. (jud,Perez-Montes, Joseph) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to William Hilton (crt,Dunford, T) |
| Judge Dee D Drell and Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes added. (crt,Dunford, T) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0536-3890786) filed by Robert Earl Byford. (Attachments: #1 Civil cover sheet)(Attorney L Clayton Burgess added to party Robert Earl Byford(pty:pla))(aty,Burgess, L) |
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 Louisiana Western 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.
