Ramsey v. Amtrak
| Philip E. Ramsey, Esq. |
| Amtrak |
| 1:2022cv00900 |
| June 8, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Christopher C Conner |
| Karoline Mehalchick |
| Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER re #8 Letter - Ramsey does not point to any change in law, availability of new evidence, or error of law or fact which should cause this Court to reconsider its ruling, and does not address the issue of dismissal pursuant to the three strikes rule of the PLRA. As such, any request for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Chief MJ Karoline Mehalchick on 8/2/2022. (cw)
|
| Filing 8 Letter from Philip Ramsey, RE: Denial of motion to proceed IFP. (rw) |
| Filing 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Philip E. Ramsey, Esq. - Based on the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Ramseys motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), and that this action be dismissed without prejudice until such time that Ramsey pays the full $402.00 filing fee. Objections to R&R due by 8/8/2022. Signed by Chief MJ Karoline Mehalchick on 7/25/2022. (cw) |
| VERBAL ORDER REASSIGNING CASE - Case reassigned to Honorable Christopher C. Conner and referred to Chief MJ Karoline Mehalchick for the filing of a Report and Recommendation. (jkc) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - The Court has determined that Ramsey has accumulated three strikes. Accordingly, Ramsey is hereby ORDERED to show cause, on or before Monday, July 11, 2022, why 28 U.S.C. 1915(g) should not apply here, or, alternatively, how Ramsey was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time the instant complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Show Cause Response due by 7/11/2022. Signed by Chief MJ Karoline Mehalchick on 6/28/2022. (cw)
|
| Filing 5 Letter from Philip Ramsey. (pjr) |
| Filing 4 STANDING PRACTICE ORDER issued. Signed by Chief MJ Karoline Mehalchick on 6/8/22. (pjr) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE LETTER ISSUED providing the case number. (pjr) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Philip E. Ramsey, Esq.(pjr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Amtrak lodged pending the disposition of the Motion for In Forma Pauperis, filed by Philip E. Ramsey, Esq. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(pjr) |
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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: Ramsey v. Amtrak | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Philip E. Ramsey, Esq. | |
| 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: Amtrak | |
| 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.
