Sanchez v. Hooks et al
| Carlos E. Sanchez |
| Erik A. Hooks and Kenneth E. Lassiter |
| 5:2019ct03144 |
| May 15, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| James C Dever |
| Prisoner Petitions (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Letter from Carlos E. Sanchez requesting the status of the case. (Attachment: #1 Envelope) Courtesy copy of docket sheet sent via US Mail to plaintiff at Pamlico Correctional. (Indig, A.) |
| Filing 4 Memorandum in Support regarding #1 Complaint filed by Carlos E. Sanchez. (Attachments: #1 Documents in Support, #2 Envelope) (Indig, A.) |
| Case Submitted to District Judge James C. Dever III for complaint review. (Indig, A.) |
| Filing fee: $ 400.00, receipt number RAL072169. (Indig, A.) |
Filing 3
ORDER of Deficiency. You must either file an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidavit or pay $400.00. Response due by 6/7/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 5/16/2019. Copy sent to plaintiff via US Mail. (Indig, A.)
|
| Filing 2 Letter regarding case opening sent via US Mail to Carlos E. Sanchez at Pamlico Correctional Institution. (Indig, A.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Erik A. Hooks and Kenneth E. Lassiter filed by Carlos E. Sanchez. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope) (Indig, A.) |
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.
- 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.
