JONES v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
| SAMUEL JONES and SHAMEL JONES |
| PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, GEORGE LITTLE, EDS, TAD BICKEL, FACILITY MANAGER MICHAEL ZAKEN, DEPUTY SUP. BUZAS, DSCS DELASANDRO, MAJOR MALANOSKI, COULERHAND, CHAPLAIN SIBANDA, HURD, LAUREL HARRY and CCPM CARLA SWARTZ |
| 2:2023cv01780 |
| October 16, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Richard A Lanzillo |
| Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 21, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 STANDING PRACTICE ORDER FOR PRO SE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 11/21/2023. (dlh) |
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by SHAMEL JONES. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (dmh) |
| Filing 3 SUPPLEMENT by SHAMEL JONES to #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Attachments: #1 Prisoner Authorization Form, #2 Envelope) (dmh) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by SHAMEL JONES. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Envelope) (dmh) |
| Filing 1 Remark: Complaint lodged without Motion for In Forma Pauperis or payment of filing fee (Attachments: #1 Motion for Appt of Counsel, #2 Exhibit, #3 Envelope) (dmh) |
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 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.
