Muhammad v. Taylor et al
Plaintiff: Tariq Muhammad
Defendant: Buck G. Taylor and Tasha Petersen
Case Number: 6:2023cv00856
Filed: June 12, 2023
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Presiding Judge: Karin J Immergut
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 1, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER: Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration on Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed IFP #7 . Although Plaintiff argues that the Court's enforcement of the three strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), is unconstitutional and discriminatory, the Ninth Circuit has held that Section 1915(g) "does not infringe upon an inmate's meaningful access to the courts[,]" and withstands due process and equal protection challenges under the rational basis test. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Plaintiff must pay the $402.00 filing fee by 8/15/2023 if he wishes to proceed. Ordered by Judge Karin J. Immergut. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 8/1/2023.) (ki)
July 18, 2023 Filing 8 Declaration in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. #7 ). Filed by Tariq Muhammad. (dino)
July 18, 2023 Filing 7 Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. #5 ). Filed by Tariq Muhammad. (dino)
July 11, 2023 Filing 6 Declaration of Tariq Muhammad. Filed by Tariq Muhammad. (Related document(s): Complaint #1 .) (jw)
July 7, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. #4 ) and ORDERS Plaintiff to pay the full filing fee of $402.00, within thirty days of the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this proceeding, without prejudice. Signed on 7/7/2023 by Judge Karin J. Immergut. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 7/7/2023.) (dsg)
July 5, 2023 Filing 4 Application for Leave to Proceed IFP. Filed by Tariq Muhammad. (jw)
June 30, 2023 Filing 3 Exhibits re Complaint #1 . Filed by Tariq Muhammad. (dsg)
June 12, 2023 Filing 2 Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Judge Karin J. Immergut. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 6/12/2023.) (dsg)
June 12, 2023 Filing 1 Complaint. (No IFP Filed, No Filing Fee Paid) Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Filed by Tariq Muhammad against Tasha Petersen, Buck G. Taylor. (dsg)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Muhammad v. Taylor et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tariq Muhammad
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 ]
Defendant: Buck G. Taylor
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 ]
Defendant: Tasha Petersen
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.


Why Is My Information Online?