Ardila v. State of Tennessee, The et al
| Helbert Ardila |
| Fred Gaston, Tennessee Department of Labor, State of Tennessee, The and Tennessee Department of Human Resources |
| 3:2020cv01066 |
| December 11, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| William L Campbell |
| Barbara D Holmes |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.01(c)(1), this case is also exempt from customized case management because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The Court will enter a separate scheduling order setting out deadlines for the progression of this case following Defendants' answer or response to the complaint. Plaintiff is advised that he is responsible for serving each Defendant with a summons and the complaint, in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 02/04/2021. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: Plaintiff Helbert Ardila filed a pro se Complaint against the State of Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Labor, Tennessee Department of Human Resources, and Assistant Commissioner of Labor Fred Gaston under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. (Doc. No. #1 ). This action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to oversee service of process, enter a scheduling order for the management of the case, dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. on 01/05/2021. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
|
| Filing 4 RECEIPT #34675061007 in the amount of $402.00 posted by Helbert Ardila re #1 Complaint. (ln) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: Accordingly, to proceed in this case, Plaintiff MUST submit either (1) the full $402.00 civil filing fee to the Clerk of Court; or (2) a completed and signed application to proceed as a pauper. The Clerk SHALL mail Plaintiff a blank long-form application for non-prisoners to proceed in district court without prepaying costs or fees. Plaintiff's response MUST be received within 30 DAYS of the date this order is entered on the docket. Failure to comply, or to request an extension of time, by the deadline may result in dismissal of the Complaint for want of prosecution and failure to follow an order of the Court. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 12/17/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail along with a blank long-form application for non-prisoners.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (ln) |
| Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form and Notice of Consent form included). (ln) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Fred Gaston, State of Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Human Resources, and Tennessee Department of Labor filed by Helbert Ardila. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1 - Right to Sue Letter).(ln) |
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
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.
