HOLMES v. LANCASTER et al
| BRIAN R HOLMES |
| MICHAEL O MITCHELL, DALE P LANCASTER, TEISHA CATES, CORY C SWOPE and SEAN P MAGUIRE |
| 1:2019cv00548 |
| December 2, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Maine |
| JOHN C NIVISON |
| NANCY TORRESEN |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER granting #4 Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Intent to Proceed. Time is extended to January 27, 2020. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (NIVISON, JOHN)
|
| Reset Deadlines - Per Order #5: Prisoner Intent to Proceed Deadline reset to 1/27/2020. (mnd) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Extend Time to File Notice of Intent by BRIAN R HOLMES (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(mnd) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's intent to proceed due 12/26/2019. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
|
| Set Deadlines: Prisoner Intent to Proceed Deadline 12/26/2019. (MFS) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by BRIAN R HOLMES (Attachments: #1 Inmate Transaction Detail, #2 Letter in support, #3 Envelope)(jwr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against TEISHA CATES, DALE P LANCASTER, SEAN P MAGUIRE, MICHAEL O MITCHELL, CORY C SWOPE, filed by BRIAN R HOLMES. (Service of Process Deadline 3/2/2020)(jwr) |
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 Maine 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.
