Gomez v. State of South Dakota et al
| Daniel Jose Gomez |
| State of South Dakota, Minnehaha County States Attorneys Office, Tim Herschberger, Mark Kadi and Mellisa Sommors |
| 4:2020cv04151 |
| October 20, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Dakota |
| Roberto A Lange |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Daniel Jose Gomez. Minnehaha County States Attorneys Office served on 12/14/2020, answer due 1/4/2021. (SAC) |
| Filing 9 Summons Issued as to Minnehaha County States Attorneys Office. 1 Summons(es), USM-285 form, doc. #1 Complaint and #8 Service Order delivered to USMS for service. (Attachments: #1 USM 285 form)(SAC) Modified on 12/8/2020 (SAC). |
Filing 8
28 U.S.C. § 1915 SCREENING ORDER FOR SERVICE IN PART AND DISMISSAL IN PART AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying #6 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 12/03/2020. MAILING copy of Order; Sample Summons & USM-285 forms; Blank Summons & USM-285 forms; and AO 85 form and Rule 73 memo to Daniel Jose Gomez. (SAC)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER granting #4 Motion to Electronically File Documents in CM/ECF. The Clerks Office shall arrange to train the pro se filer on how to e-file documents and issue the pro se filer a CM/ECF login and password after the training is completed. The ability of the pro se filer to e-file documents may be revoked anytime the Court deems it justified. Signed by Chief Judge Roberto A. Lange on 12/03/2020. (SAC)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by Daniel Jose Gomez. (SAC) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Clerks Office has received your Complaint together with an Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs. A new case has been opened. Copy of docket sheet sent to plaintiff. Any further documents or correspondence you send to the Clerks Office concerning your case must include the case number. All documents submitted for filing must also contain an original signature. Submitted documents are electronically scanned for filing and they become the official court record. The quality of the official court record is determined by the quality of the original documents received for filing. Writing should only be on one side of the paper and writing must be dark enough for scanning. All documents must be on 8.5 x 11 inch paper. The plaintiff must keep the Court informed if the plaintiff's address changes. If the Court is not kept informed and multiple items are returned as undelivered, the plaintiff's case may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (SAC) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Electronically File Documents. Pro se party Daniel Jose Gomez will now receive electronic notice of unsealed documents filed in this case, but must wait for a Court ruling regarding e-filing. Refer to the CM/ECF User Manual located on the court website at www.sdd.uscourts.gov for information about accessing documents. (SAC) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Daniel Jose Gomez. (SAC) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Daniel Jose Gomez. (SAC) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand,, filed by Daniel Jose Gomez. (Attachments: #1 Attachment) (SAC) |
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 South Dakota 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.
