Easley v. Dozier
| Desia Easley |
| (f/n/u) Dozier |
| 3:2020cv00841 |
| September 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Aleta A Trauger |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 18, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The plaintiff did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed as a pauper. On 10/9/2020, the court issued an order to show cause directing the plaintiff to submit either the $400.00 civil filing fee or an application to proceed as a pauper, and explain in writing why the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Because the plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's order, and has neither resolved the filing fee nor demonstrated any interest in pursuing this litigation further, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/18/2020. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(kc)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER: First, the plaintiff has not resolved the filing fee in each case. In order to file a civil lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff must submit either the $400.00 civil filing fee or an application to proceed as a pauper. 28 U.S.C. 1914. Accordingly, to proceed in each case, the plaintiff MUST submit either (1) the full $400.00 civil filing fee to the Clerk of Court; or (2) an application to proceed as a pauper. The Clerk SHALL mail the plaintiff three blank long-form applications to proceed in district court without prepaying costs or fees for non-prisoners. Accordingly, the plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over each of the three complaints. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/9/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (Pro se party sent (3) blank IFP (long) forms by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)
|
| Filing 3 ***DISREGARD. ENTERED IN CLERICAL ERROR. CANCELLED.*** NOTICE of Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/1/2020 at 2:30 PM in Chambers 825 before District Judge Aleta A. Trauger. (kc) Modified on 10/5/2020 (kc). |
| Filing 2 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (kc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against (f/n/u) Dozier, filed by Desia Easley.(kc) |
| Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form included). (kc) |
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 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
| Search for this case: Easley v. Dozier | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: (f/n/u) Dozier | |
| 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: Desia Easley | |
| 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.
