Matthews v. Filson et al
| Ivan Lee Matthews, II |
| Ely State Prison, Nevada Department of Corrections, William Filson, William Reubart and Warden William Gittere |
| 3:2019cv00244 |
| May 10, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Carla Baldwin Carry |
| Miranda M Du |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 MOTION/APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews II. (KR) |
Filing 3
ORDER that Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. #1 ) is denied; Clerk shall send Plaintiff the approved IFP form and instructions (Mailed to P on 5/14/2019); Fully complete IFP application or $400 filing fee due by 6/12/2019; if Plaintiff does not timely comply with this order, dismissal of this action may result; Clerk shall retain the complaint (ECF No. #1 -1), but shall not file it at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry on 5/13/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
| Filing 2 ADVISORY LETTER to litigant. (LH) |
| Filing 1 MOTION/APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews, II. (Attachments: #1 Complaint)(LH) |
| Case randomly assigned to District Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry. (LE) |
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 Nevada 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.
