Sheldon v. Sanders et al
| Gary Thomas Sheldon |
| Merske, Taylor, York, Mike Smith, Cooper, Livingston, Dana White, Wren, Snyder, Martha Underwood, McCullough, Dr. McDermott, Linda Sanders, Albert, Easton, Ray, Saucedo, Sandles, Vegara, Caraway, Simon, Dr. Caperton, Hammer, Thomas, Applegate, Dr. Brandt, Folster, Walters and Rhearman |
| 6:2019cv03213 |
| June 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| M Douglas Harpool |
| Prisoner Pro Se |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 25, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE to Doc. 11 filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. (Attachment: #1 Exhibit)(Davies, Cindy) |
Filing 13
ORDER: The motions contained in Doc. #12 are DENIED without prejudice. Signed on 07/24/2019 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Willis, Kathy)
|
| Filing 12 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for temporary restraining order and MOTION for ORDER excusing plaintiff of exhausting administrative remedies filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/5/2019. (Attachment: #1 Exhibits)(Davies, Cindy) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER: ORDERED that, because Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial filing fee as previously ordered, Plaintiff shall show cause, on or before July 30, 2019 as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with this Court's Orders. Signed on July 16, 2019 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Davies, Cindy)
|
| Filing 10 PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST to excuse plaintiff of administrative remedies filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon.(Willis, Kathy) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #8 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to pay the initial partial filing fee. Initial fee now due on or before 7/12/2019. The remainder of Plaintiff's motion for order is denied without prejudice as premature. Signed on 07/02/2019 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached. (Casey, Susan)
|
| Filing 8 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for extension of time to file initial partial filing fee filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 7/12/2019. (Willis, Kathy) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER denying #4 Plaintiff's Motion for preliminary injunction. Signed on 06/26/2019 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Casey, Susan)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (2) Plaintiff shall pay to the clerk of the court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, an initial partial filing fee of $9.47; and (3) Plaintiff's failure to pay the required initial partial filing fee on or before July 1, 2019, will result in the dismissal of this case without further notice. Signed on June 17, 2019 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (Davies, Cindy)
|
| Filing 4 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 6/25/2019. (Davies, Cindy) |
| Filing 3 Inmate ACCOUNT STATEMENT filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. (Davies, Cindy) |
| Filing 2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. (Davies, Cindy) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Gary Thomas Sheldon. (Attachment: #1 Exhibits)(Davies, Cindy) |
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.
