Smith et al v. Fikes et al
| Steven Jack Montgomery and James Tyrone Smith |
| Jeffrey Fikes and William Barr |
| 0:2020cv02454 |
| December 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Tony N Leung |
| John R Tunheim |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal filed by Steven Jack Montgomery. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Letter, #2 Envelope)(KNK) |
| Filing 3 LETTER to Plaintiffs from the Clerk's Office (Second Request). (Attachments: #1 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis)(kt) |
| Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Steven Jack Montgomery #1 Complaint Returned to Sender. Attempted Not Known. Unable to forward. #1 Complaint remailed to new BOP address for Steven Jack Montgomery. (MMP) |
| Filing 2 LETTER from Clerk's Office to James Tyrone Smith re: Initial Filing Fee. (MKB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against William Barr, Jeffrey Fikes filed by James Tyrone Smith, Steven Jack Montgomery. No summons requested. Case assigned to Judge Chief Judge John R. Tunheim per Civil (5th - Prisoner) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Cover Letter, #3 Certificate of Service, #4 Envelope, #5 Order) (MKB) |
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 Minnesota 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.
