Daniel v. Williams et al
Plaintiff: MeShaw Daniel
Defendant: James Williams, Keith Bickford and Anthony Moody
Case Number: 1:2017cv00070
Filed: May 8, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: Cape Girardeau Office
County: Scott
Presiding Judge: Nannette A. Baker
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
August 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 35 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Sanctions and Second Motion for Sanctions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein. [Docs. 30 and 33]. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and Defendants' request for attorneys fees is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 8/10/18. (MRS)
December 4, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 24 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 22 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Plaintiff MeShaw Daniel motion is DENIED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 12/4/17. (MRS)
August 2, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) filed by Plaintiff MeShaw Daniel motion is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must pay an initial filing fee of $2.94 within thirt y (30) days of the date of this Order( Initial Partial Filing Fee due by 9/5/2017.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs official capacity claims against defendants James Williams, Keith Bickford, and Anthony Moody are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C . §l 915(e)(2)(B)(i). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs individual capacity claim againstdefendant James Williams is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process, or cause process to issue, upon the complaint as to defendants Keith Bickford and Anthony Moody intheir individual capacities. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this partial dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 8/2/17. (MRS)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Daniel v. Williams et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: MeShaw Daniel
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 ]
Defendant: James Williams
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 ]
Defendant: Keith Bickford
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 ]
Defendant: Anthony Moody
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.


Why Is My Information Online?