Levesque v. USA
Case Number:
1:2009cv00426
Filed:
January 21, 2010
Court:
New Hampshire District Court
Office:
Concord Office
Presiding Judge:
Paul J. Barbadoro
Referring Judge:
James R. Muirhead
Nature of Suit:
Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action:
42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:
Plaintiff
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2010 | 21 |
ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion to Extend Time; denying as moot 4 Motion in Limine; denying as moot 8 Motion to Expedite Ruling; denying as moot 10 Motion for Immediate Hearing; denying 11 Motion to Certify Class; denying as moot 14 Motion to Consider Cases; denying as moot 15 Motion to Freeze Assets; denying 20 Motion to Waive Filing Fee. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. (jna)
|
| January 22, 2010 | 13 |
ORDER approving 7 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis as to Andre Levesque, initial fee of $16.40 due by 2/22/2010. No further action by court until initial fee paid. Failure to pay will result in dismissal. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead. Fee due 2/22/2010. (amm)
|
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 New Hampshire 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: Levesque v. USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ 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.
