ROCHESTER v. KLINEFELTER et al
| FAHEEM ROCHESTER |
| KLINEFELTER, WARDEN DEPUTY IVICIC, DEPUTY CLOSE, MAJOR BARROWS, LLPM PYO, LT PATTERSON and C/O DAVIS |
| 3:2023cv00284 |
| November 15, 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 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by FAHEEM ROCHESTER. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (kss) |
| Filing 4 Remark: Exhibits in Support of #1 Complaint pending disposition of IFP Motion. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit D, #2 Exhibit E, #3 Envelope) (kss) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by FAHEEM ROCHESTER. (Attachments: #1 Prisoner Authorization Form, #2 Envelope) (kss) |
| Filing 2 STANDING PRACTICE ORDER FOR PRO SE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 11/21/2023. (dlh) |
| Filing 1 Remark: Complaint lodged without Motion for In Forma Pauperis or payment of filing fee (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Cover Letter, #5 Envelopes) (kss) Link added to #4 for additional exhibits. Modified text on 11/22/2023. (kss) |
| Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo added. (kss) |
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.
