Velez v. Dzurenda et al
| Edwin Velez |
| Dr. McCullin, Dr. Ronald Chen, Baker and Dzurenda |
| 3:2021cv00197 |
| April 29, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Carla Baldwin |
| Miranda M Du |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 6, 2025. 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 Edwin Velez. (SC) |
Filing 3
ORDERED that Plaintiff 's IFP application (ECF No. #1 ) is denied without prejudice to file a new fully complete IFP application as detailed herein. Clerk shall send P approved IFP form and instructions. (Attached hereto for distribution to P via LCC law library.) Fully complete IFP application or $402 filing fee due by 6/29/2021 as specified herein. Clerk of the Court will retain the complaint (ECF No. #1 -1) but will not file it at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 5/3/2021. (Attachments: #1 IFP form and Instructions)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
| Filing 2 ADVISORY LETTER to litigant. (SC) |
| Filing 1 MOTION/APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Plaintiff Edwin Velez. (Attachments: #1 Complaint) (SC) |
| Case randomly assigned to Chief Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin. (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.
