Shockley v. St. Louis Police Department et al
| Antione Shockley |
| St. Louis Police Department, Jennifer Joyce, Uknown Named Prosecutor, Vincent Carr, City of St. Louis and Bobby Garrett |
| 4:2009cv00394 |
| March 9, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights Office |
| St. Louis - City |
| Charles A. Shaw |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
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
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $7.19 within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is instructed to make his remittance payable to "Clerk, United States District Court," and to include upon it: (1) his name; (2) his prison registration number; (3) the case number; and (4) that the re mittance is for an original proceeding. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue process or cause process to issue upon the complaint, because the complaint is legally frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An appropriate order shall accompany this memorandum and order. Signed by Honorable Charles A. Shaw on 3/26/09. (KJF, )
|
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.
