Dixon v. Opacich
| William Dixon |
| Sandy Opacich |
| 1:2019cv00502 |
| March 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Dan Aaron Polster |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1442 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
Judgment Entry For the reasons stated in the contemporaneously-filed #9 Memorandum Opinion and Order, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the above-captioned case is hereby terminated and dismissed. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/7/2019. (K,K)
|
|
Filing 9
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, this action is dismissed pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dixon's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #: #3 ), and motion for leave to file a motion for injunctive relief (Doc. #: #4 ), are terminated.The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/7/2019. (K,K)
|
| Copy of #9 Memorandum Opinion and Order and #10 Judgment mailed to William Dixon (#529-169) at Toledo Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 80033, 2001 East Central Ave., Toledo, OH 43608 and Leah M. Wolfe at Office of the U.S. Attorney - Columbus, Ste. 200, 303 Marconi Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 on 3/7/2019. (K,K) |
| Notice to Attorney Leah M. Wolfe. The Court finds no record of your being admitted to practice in the Northern District of Ohio. Pursuant to LR 83.5, an Application for Admission to Practice or a Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in this case must be filed within 10 business days. The local rules and the attorney admission application are available on the court's web site at: www.ohnd.uscourts.gov. If you are not the attorney of record in this case, a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney pursuant to LR 83.9 must be filed within 10 business days. Related document(s) #2 , #1 . (P,WL) |
| Filing 8 CASE TRANSFERRED IN from District of Ohio Southern. Case number 2:19-cv-00390. Electronic file, transfer order and docket sheet received. |
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #2 Motion to Transfer Venue: This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 3/6/2019. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.]
|
| Copy of docket sheet mailed to pro-se petitioner William Dixon #529-169, at Toledo Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 80033, 2001 East Central Ave.,Toledo, OH 43608, and attorney Leah M. Wolfe at U.S. Department of Justice, 303 Marconi Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215 on 3/6/2019. (T,Je) |
| Judge Dan Aaron Polster assigned to case. (T,Je) |
| Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. (T,Je) |
| Filing 6 REPLY to Response to Motion re #2 MOTION to Change Venue to the United States District Court for the Norhtern District of Ohio filed by Respondent Sandy Opacich. (Wolfe, Leah) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.] |
| Filing 5 RESPONSE in Opposition re #2 MOTION to Change Venue to the United States District Court for the Norhtern District of Ohio filed by Petitioner William Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (er) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.] |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Injunctive Relief Protection Order by Petitioner William Dixon. (er) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.] |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (The following document(s) were not submitted to the Office of the Clerk: Summons and Marshal form) by Petitioner William Dixon. (Attachments: #1 Writ of Mandamus) (er) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.] |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Change Venue to the United States District Court for the Norhtern District of Ohio by Respondent Sandy Opacich. (Wolfe, Leah) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Ohio Supreme Court, case number 2019-0070, filed by Sandy Opacich. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet) (Wolfe, Leah) [Transferred from ohsd on 3/6/2019.] |
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 Ohio Northern 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: Dixon v. Opacich | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Sandy Opacich | |
| Represented By: | Leah M. Wolfe |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: William Dixon | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
