Ortiz v. State of Neb Douglas Co
| Lucas M. Ortiz |
| State of Neb Douglas Co |
| 8:2017cv00412 |
| October 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Richard G. Kopf |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
14
ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with this court's orders. The court will enter judgment by a separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff must update his address within 30 days. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: June 20, 2018: check for address. The clerk of the court shall send a copy of this order to Plaintiff's last known address and also shall send a copy to Plaintiff at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, 4201 S. 14th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska 68502. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's claims against Douglas County under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint that states a claim upon which relief may be granted under the Eighth Amendment. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the court will result in the court dismissing this case without further notice to Plaintiff. The clerk of the court is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: June 11, 2018: check for amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff Lucas M. Ortiz shall pay an initial partial filing fee of $48.73 by January 8, 2018, unless an enlargement of time is granted in response to a written motion. Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 1/8/2018: Initial partial filing fee payment due. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party and insittution)(JAB)
|
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: Ortiz v. State of Neb Douglas Co | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Lucas M. Ortiz | |
| 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 Neb Douglas Co | |
| 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.
