Craig v. McVay et al
| Brian E. Craig |
| Leeann McVay, Andrew White, Mary Ford, Adriana O'Neal and Colleen Loehr |
| 2:2023cv04147 |
| July 31, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Nanette K Laughrey |
| Prisoner Pro Se |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| RECEIPT number KCMO400000634 in the amount of $350.00 issued to Brian Craig. (The filing fee was received and processed on 09/18/2023.) (Woods, Gloria) |
| Filing 7 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS filed by Brian E. Craig.(Willis, Kathy) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of appearance by Riley A. O'Shaughnessy on behalf of All Defendants (Attorney Riley A. O'Shaughnessy added to party Mary Ford(pty:dft), Attorney Riley A. O'Shaughnessy added to party Colleen Loehr(pty:dft), Attorney Riley A. O'Shaughnessy added to party Leeann McVay(pty:dft), Attorney Riley A. O'Shaughnessy added to party Adriana O'Neal(pty:dft), Attorney Riley A. O'Shaughnessy added to party Andrew White(pty:dft))(O'Shaughnessy, Riley) |
Filing 5
ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Defendants are dismissed;(2) the Attorney General of Missouri shall notify the Court, in writing, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, whether they will and will not waive service of process for Defendants Leeann McVay, Andrew White, Mary Ford, Adriana ONeal, and Colleen Loehr; (3) Defendants Leeann McVay, Andrew White, Mary Ford, Adriana ONeal, and Colleen Loehr answer or otherwise respond, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and 12, within sixty (60) days from the date of this Order if service of process is waived, or within twenty-one (21) days after service of process if service of process is not waived; and(4) the agency having custody of Plaintiff will be required to forward to the Clerk of the Court monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's inmate account each time the amount in that account exceeds $10 until the balance of the $350 filing fee is paid. Signed on 8/30/2023 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Willis, Kathy)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #3 ) is DENIED without prejudice because the record is not sufficiently developed to determine whether appointment of counsel is warranted and the case is subject to review and possibly pre-service dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Plaintiff is advised that "[t]here is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil cases." Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (citing Edington v. Missouri Dept of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 1995)). Rather, "[i]n civil rights matters the court may, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, 'request' an attorney to represent a party if, within the court's discretion, the circumstances are such that would properly justify such a request." Mosby v. Mabry, 697 F.2d 213, 214 (8th Cir. 1982). Signed on 8/4/2023 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. (Willis, Kathy)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for appointment of counsel filed by Brian E. Craig. (Willis, Kathy) |
| Filing 2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by Brian E. Craig. (Willis, Kathy) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Brian E. Craig. (#1 Complaint Attachments, #2 Complaint Exhibits)(Willis, Kathy) |
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
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.
