Whitfield v. Nevada State Personnel et al
| Michael Whitfield |
| State of Nevada Department of Administration, Nevada Department of Correction, Nevada State Personnel, James Dzurenda and Lorna Ward |
| 3:2020cv00637 |
| November 13, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| William G Cobb |
| Miranda M Du |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 STANDING ORDER. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Miranda M. Du. Chief Judge Du's Civil Standing Order is posted on the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada public website and may be accessed directly via this hyperlink: #www.nvd.uscourts.gov. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PAV) |
| Filing 3 ADVISORY LETTER to litigant. (AB) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Michael Whitfield. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (AB) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $400 paid - Receipt Number NVRNO-5101) by Michael Whitfield. Proof of service due by 2/11/2021. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (AB) |
| Case randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin for ENE. (WJ) |
| Case randomly assigned to Chief Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. (WJ) |
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.
