Williams v. Lawrence County Jail et al
| Daniel L. Williams |
| f/n/u Haddeoku, Lawrence County Jail, Dustin Lee, Bobby L/N/U, f/n/u Mahar, f/n/u Furguson and f/n/u Kellum |
| 1:2012cv00102 |
| August 20, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Columbia Office |
| Lawrence |
| William J. Haynes |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
71
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 54 is Denied. To the extent that the Plaintiff is seeking copies of his complaint and the docket sheet, the Clerk is DIRECTED to forward these copies to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also moves t he Court to schedule a deposition hearing and provide him with ten subpoenas. Subpoenas will not be provided to the Plaintiff without compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 and identification of the person or entity Plaintiff intends t o subpoena and their relevance to this action. The Court does not set deposition hearings but Plaintiff is provided the attached pro se information form on discovery. Signed by Chief Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 2/25/14. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail. Complaint and Docket sheet sent by regular mail to Mr. Williams.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) Modified on 2/26/2014 (dt).
|
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 Tennessee 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
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.
