Gray v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al
Graylin Gray |
Harbans Deol, Scott R. Frakes, Does 1-20 and Nebraska Department of Correctional Services |
4:2019cv03063 |
June 24, 2019 |
US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
4 Lincoln Office |
Pro Se Docket |
Richard G Kopf |
Prisoner: Prison Conditions |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on August 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
|
Filing 11 MOTION to Amend or Alter Judgment - Pro Se #10 on behalf of Plaintiff Graylin Gray. (LKO) |
|
|
Filing 8 RESPONSE regarding Memorandum and Order (Show Cause) #7 on behalf of Plaintiff Graylin Gray. (LKO) |
|
Filing 6 NOTICE by Clerk acknowledging receipt of complaint filed by a pro se party. (copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB) |
|
Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel on behalf of Plaintiff Graylin Gray. (ADB) |
Filing 3 PRISONER ACCOUNT STATEMENT by Plaintiff Graylin Gray. ACCESS TO THE PDF DOCUMENT IS RESTRICTED TO CASE PARTICIPANTS AND THE COURT PURSUANT TO THE E-GOVERNMENT ACT AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 5.2(a). (ADB) |
Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of Plaintiff Graylin Gray. (ADB) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT with jury demand against Harbans Deol, Does 1-20, Scott R. Frakes, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; no Summons(es) issued ; filed on behalf of Graylin Gray. (ADB) |
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 Nebraska 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.