ASHBY v. HARPER
Plaintiff: ANDREW ASHBY and ANTHONY KENDRICK
Defendant: WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER
Case Number: 2:2020cv01247
Filed: August 21, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Presiding Judge: Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition)
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 2, 2020 Filing 15 Remark: On this date, a copy of the docket sheet, as well as the text-order at ECF No. 14, were mailed to both Mr. Ashby and Mr. Kendrick. Text-only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb)
October 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER denying as moot #13 Motion to Add New Plaintiff and denying #13 Motion to be Granted Class Status. Plaintiff states that Anthony Kendrick has a similar case pending at Civil Action No. 20-740 before Judge Kelly and he asks that this case be consolidated with that one in an effort to save time and money. He also asks that they be granted class status. It is unclear whether Plaintiff is asking this Court to add Anthony Kendrick as a plaintiff to this case or whether he is asking this Court to consolidate this case with Anthony Kendrick's case. To the extent he is asking this Court to consolidate the two cases his request is denied. To the extent he is asking this Court to add Anthony Kendrick as a plaintiff to his complaint then his request is denied as moot. Anthony Kendrick is already listed as a plaintiff on the complaint. However, it is noted that in order for this case to proceed with Anthony Kendrick as a plaintiff then Kendrick must also either pay the $400.00 filing fee or be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. But, it is unlikely that Anthony Kendrick would desire to proceed as a plaintiff in this case if he already has an identical case pending before Judge Kelly. If the two cases are found to be identical then this case would be dismissed as duplicative as to Anthony Kendrick. It is also noted that on September 29, 2020, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint because his complaint was deficient in numerous regards. Therefore, an amended complaint is expected in this case by October 29, 2020. Plaintiff is warned that he should only include Anthony Kendrick as a plaintiff in that amended complaint if Kendrick consents, signs the amended complaint and pays the $400.00 filing fee or submits a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the Court reiterates that if Plaintiff includes Anthony Kendrick as a plaintiff in that amended complaint then Kendrick will be dismissed from this action if it is found that the claims in this case are identical to the claims in his case before Judge Kelly because the Court cannot have two duplicative cases proceeding with the same plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff and Anthony Kendrick should consider how they would like to proceed. If Anthony Kendrick is not included as a plaintiff in the amended complaint then the Court will terminate him as a plaintiff in this case. For the sake of clarity, the Court is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on October 2, 2020. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kcb)
October 2, 2020 Filing 13 MOTION to Add New Plaintiff, MOTION to Be Granted Class Status by ANDREW ASHBY. (ma)
October 2, 2020 Filing 12 Errata re #8 Complaint Reason for Correction: Wrong document attached. (ma)
October 1, 2020 Filing 11 Remark: Correspondence from Plaintiff re #7 Order (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (ma)
October 1, 2020 Filing 10 Authorization permitting withdrawal of prison account funds to pay filing fee by ANDREW ASHBY. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (ma)
September 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER re #8 Complaint filed by ANDREW ASHBY. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall amend his complaint as described herein and file it with the Court by October 29, 2020. Plaintiff shall clearly mark his complaint Amended Complaint. It must include all of Plaintiff's claims and should not refer back to the original complaint. Any claim not included in the amended complaint will be deemed waived. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order then the undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on September 29, 2020. (kcb)
September 15, 2020 Filing 8 COMPLAINT against ORLANDO HARPER, filed by ANDREW ASHBY and ANTHONY KENDRICK. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (ma) Wrong document attached. Removed from public view and refiled as an errata at #12 . Modified on 10/2/2020 (ma).
September 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER that the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. #4 ) is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this case and to file the complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on 09/11/2020. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Authorization Form) (jmb)
September 2, 2020 Filing 6 CONSENT to Trial/Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge OR District Judge Option, by ANDREW ASHBY. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (ma)
September 2, 2020 Filing 5 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by ANDREW ASHBY. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (ma)
September 2, 2020 Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by ANDREW ASHBY. (Attachments: #1 Authorization, #2 Authorization (Prison), #3 Proposed Complaint Pending Disposition of In Forma Pauperis Motion, #4 Proposed Motion to Add New Plaintiff and Be Granted Class Status, #5 Envelope) (ma)
August 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF. No. #1 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff may submit another motion to proceed in forma pauperis, along with a certified copy of the inmate account statement for the six (6) months preceding the filing of the complaint. If that resubmitted motion is granted, the case will be reopened. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff may reopen the case by paying the $400.00 filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on 08/29/2020. (jmb)
August 21, 2020 Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by ANDREW ASHBY. (Attachments: #1 Authorization, #2 Proposed Complaint Pending Disposition of In Forma Pauperis Motion, #3 Exhibit, #4 Correspondence, #5 Envelope) (ma)

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

Search for this case: ASHBY v. HARPER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER
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 ]
Plaintiff: ANDREW ASHBY
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 ]
Plaintiff: ANTHONY KENDRICK
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?