Hughes-Canal v. Lewis and Clark County District Attorney's Office et al
| Christopher L. Hughes-Canal |
| Lewis and Clark County District Attorney's Office, Kevin Downs and Fallon Stanton |
| 6:2022cv00099 |
| December 27, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Montana |
| Sam E Haddon |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Mailed to Hughes (TAG) |
Filing 6
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Hughes-Canal. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 1/17/2023. Mailed to Hughes and LCCDC (TAG)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. #1 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis granted. Any appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 1/17/2023. Mailed to Hughes. (TAG)
|
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Christopher L. Hughes-Canal. (Attachments: #1 Account Statement) (TAG) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CASE OPENING re #2 Complaint IFP/Prisoner. Mailed to Hughes with docket sheet (TAG) |
| Filing 2 LODGED COMPLAINT IFP/PRISONER (Filing fee $ 402 not paid), filed by Christopher L. Hughes-Canal. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (TAG) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Christopher L. Hughes-Canal (TAG) |
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 Montana 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.
