Maas v. State of Nebraska
| Christopher Maas |
| State of Nebraska |
| 4:2022cv03113 |
| June 29, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| Joseph F Bataillon |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's "In Forma Pauperis Financial Statement," construed as a request to proceed IFP, Filing No. #2 , is denied without prejudice to reassertion in a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that complies with 28 U.S.C. 1915. Plaintiff is directed to submit the $402.00 fees to the Clerk's office or correct the above-listed technical defects in the IFP motion on or before August 17, 2022. Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order will result in dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk of Court is directed to send to Plaintiff the Form AO240 ("Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit"). The Clerk of Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: August 17, 2022: deadline for payment or submission of a signed IFP motion. No further review of this case shall take place until Plaintiff complies with this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party with AO240 Form)(TCL)
|
| Filing 5 TEXT NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY by Deputy Clerk that the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #2 has been filed and is considered deficient because the document is not signed. The plaintiff shall correct the deficiency within 15 days of the date of this entry or the pleading may be stricken from the record of this case. See NECivR 11.1.(LRM) |
|
Filing 4
GENERAL ORDER NO. 2022-04: This general order provides for the management and assignment of cases filed by a plaintiff or petitioner without counsel. This general order also includes the definition of the pro se docket, responsibilities of the pro se law clerks and scheduling and discovery requirements in pro se cases. Ordered by Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LRM)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE by Clerk acknowledging receipt of complaint filed by a pro se party. (LRM) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of Plaintiff Christopher Maas.(LRM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against State of Nebraska filed on behalf of Christopher Maas (Attachments: #1 Due Process of Law Mandamus, #2 Information)(LRM) |
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
| Search for this case: Maas v. State of Nebraska | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Christopher Maas | |
| 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: State of Nebraska | |
| 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.
