Diaz v. MPCH et al
| Luis M. Diaz |
| MPCH, Lawrence Churchville, Meagan, Thomas Turco, III, Christopher Mitchell, Religious Services Review Commitee, William Bates, Christopher Gendreau, CO Casey and Massachusetts Department of Correction |
| 1:2017cv10036 |
| January 24, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Norfolk |
| Nathaniel M. Gorton |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
6
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLOWING Plaintiff's Application 3 to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and DEFERRING assessment of the filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1)-(2); DENYI NG WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Emergency Motion 2 for Screening of Complaint and Emergency Temporary Restraining Order; DIRECTING legal counsel for the Massachusetts Department of Correction and Superintendent Medeiros to file a Status Repor t within 21 days; ORDERING Plaintiff to file his certified prison account statement within 42 days; DIRECTING the Clerk to issue summons for service of the complaint and allowing plaintiff to elect service by United States Marshals Service, and ORDERING defendants to respond to the complaint as provide for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2).(PSSA, 4)
|
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 Massachusetts 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.
