Cruz v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development et al
| Leila Marie Cruz |
| U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development doing business as Foothills Regional Housing and U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development doing business as Colorado Springs Housing Authority |
| 2:2022cv04070 |
| May 9, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Nanette K Laughrey |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 Housing Discrimination |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Lock, Tania) |
Filing 2
ORDER entered by Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. The pro se plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. #1 . Under Local Rule 83.7 an in forma pauperis applicant may request leave to commence a civil action without being required to prepay fees or costs by filing with the complaint an affidavit requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Furthermore, "[t]he affidavit must either be on the form provided by the Clerk, or else contain the same information requested on the Clerk's form." See L.R. 83.7. In another case Plaintiff filed with this Court, Plaintiff represented to the Court that she receives tribal benefits. Cruz v. Ca. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 22-4059 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 19, 2022), Doc. 4. However, Plaintiff has failed to include this information in her application. As a result of Plaintiff's failure to provide all of the required financial information, her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. #1 , is denied. Signed on 6/14/2022 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Vandegriff, Joseph)
|
| Filing 1 PRO SE MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Leila Marie Cruz. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/23/2022 unless otherwise directed by the court. NEF mailed to Leila Cruz at 420 East Hinton Rd., Ste. A, Columbia, MO 65202. (Attachments: #1 Complaint, #2 Envelope)(Berner, Crystal) |
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 Western 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
| Search for this case: Cruz v. U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 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: Leila Marie Cruz | |
| 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: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development doing business as Foothills Regional Housing | |
| 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: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development doing business as Colorado Springs Housing Authority | |
| 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.
