Rowbotham v. Lucas et al
| David Paul Rowbotham |
| Sheriff David Lucas, Sgt. Dewey Morgan, Deputy Sarah Costine, J Muntz, Deputy Cindy Huntsman, Deputy Vanessa, Deputy Idora Kumbro, Deputy Hulin, Deputy Trent, Deputy Miranda, Deputy Mike Ardeno, Deputy Tom Kenefick, Deputy W Back and Deputy Sable |
| 2:2022cv02459 |
| June 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Algenon L Marbley |
| Chelsey M Vascura |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by David Paul Rowbotham against David Lucas & Dewey Morgan. (Attachments: #1 Summons Form, #2 Envelope) (er) |
| Filing 10 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by David Paul Rowbotham. (daf) |
Filing 9
ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ; granting #8 Amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 7/27/2022. (daf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) Modified docket text on 7/28/2022 (agm).
|
| Filing 8 Amended MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff David Paul Rowbotham. (jlk) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit a certified copy of his trust fund account statement from his current facility or to move for an Order compelling the current facility to process his request for one. Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date of this Order to comply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 6/29/2022. (daf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 6 ACCOUNT SUMMARY by Plaintiff David Paul Rowbotham re #4 Order on Motion to Compel AND #1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Attachments: #1 Env.) (jlk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Change of Address by Plaintiff David Paul Rowbotham. (vb) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Motion to Compel. The Belmont County Sheriff is ORDERED to ensure that the Jail Cashier processes Plaintiff's request WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS. Alternatively, the Sheriff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS why the Jail Cashier has refused and continues to refuse to process Plaintiff's request. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 6/15/2022. (daf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for the Clerk to make required service copies filed by Plaintiff David Paul Rowbotham. (jlk) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Complete Application and Affidavit filed by Plaintiff David Paul Rowbotham. (jlk) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff David Paul Rowbotham. (Attachments: #1 complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 USM form, #4 Summons Form, #5 Env.) (jlk) Modified date filed on 6/14/2022 (jlk). |
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 Southern 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.
