Stewart v. Shelby County Criminal Justice Center et al
| Calvin Catrone Stewart |
| Shelby County Sheriff Office, Floyd Bonner, Jr., JOHN DOE, Shelby County Criminal Justice Center and Sgt. Burford |
| 2:2024cv02778 |
| October 15, 2024 |
| 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 October 16, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 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 (mf) |
| Filing 3 Pro Se MOTION for Prospective and Preliminary Injunctive Relief by Calvin Catrone Stewart. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(mf) |
| Filing 2 Pro Se MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Calvin Catrone Stewart. (Attachments: #1 inmate trust fund account, #2 envelope)(mf) |
| Filing 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT for Violation of Civil Rights under 42 USC 1983 against Floyd Bonner, Jr, Sgt. Burford, JOHN DOE, Shelby County Criminal Justice Center, and Shelby County Sheriff Office, filed by Calvin Catrone Stewart. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(mf) |
| Pursuant to Administrative Order 2019-01 case reassigned to Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr and Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham. (mf) |
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.
