Davis v. Torshein et al
| Bryce Davis |
| Samuel Torshein, Cody Collem and Taylor Whitely |
| 1:2022cv00080 |
| June 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Sarah E Pitlyk |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 SUPPLEMENTAL re #5 MOTION to Add Party by Plaintiff Bryce Davis. (MRS) |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Add Parties by Plaintiff Bryce Davis. (MRS) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Bryce Davis. (MRS) |
| Filing 3 Certified Inmate Account Statement by Plaintiff Bryce Davis. (MRS) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis under 42:1983 (prisoner) by Plaintiff Bryce Davis. (MRS) |
| Filing 1 DCM COMPLAINT against defendant Cody Collem, Samuel Torshein, Taylor Whitely Jury Demand Demand,, filed by Bryce Davis. (Attachments: #1 Original Filing Form)(MRS) |
| Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk. (MRS) |
| ***Complaint Letter Created. This is to advise you that this office has received and filed your complaint and has assigned it the above-referenced case number. (MRS) |
| ***Complaint Letter Processed (see notice of electronic filing for distribution list) Mon Jun 13 16:01:10 CDT 2022 (admin,) |
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 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.
