Smith v. Madison County Sheriff et al
| Nathan Smith |
| Madison County Sheriff and State of Tennessee |
| 1:2022cv01183 |
| September 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Samuel H Mays |
| Tu M Pham |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 PRO SE MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 cover letter, #2 envelope)(jae) |
| Filing 7 Letter from Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 envelope) (mbm) |
Filing 6
ORDER directing Plaintiff to comply with 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(2) or pay the $402 civil filing fee, signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. on 09/08/2022. (Mays, Samuel)
|
| Filing 5 Entered in error. |
| Filing 4 Entered in error. |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Pro Se Prisoner track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (mbm) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(mbm) |
| Filing 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Nathan Smith. (Attachments: #1 cover letter, #2 envelope)(mbm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/6/2022: #3 Judicial Cards) (btg). |
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 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.
