Barnes v. Livingston

Barnes v. Livingston

Plaintiff:	Howard Lee Barnes
Defendant:	Brad Livingston
Case Number:	2:2009cv00210
Filed:	August 25, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Amarillo Office
County:	Potter
Presiding Judge:	Clinton E Averitte
Presiding Judge:	Mary Lou Robinson
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 4, 2010	Filing 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and ORDER OF DISMISSAL - denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Adopting 10 Report and Recommendation filed by Howard Lee Barnes. Ordered that the Civil Rights Complaint filed by pltf is dismissed without prejudice to refiling with prepayment of the filing fee. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/4/2010) (plh) Modified on 3/5/2010 (jeh).
November 19, 2009	Filing 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Because pltf has already sustained the "three strikes" and can no loner avail himself of the provisions for proceeding ifp, it is the recommendation of the Mag Judge to the Dist Judge that pltf's request to proceed ifp be denied and that the instant cause be dismissed for failure to pay the requisite filing fee. Permission to proceed ifp is granted temporarily and solely for the purpose of allowing a R&R to issue and be considered by the US Dist Judge. Pltf is advised that if he pays the $350.00 filing fee within 14 days after the filing date hereof, this R&R of dismissal will be withdrawn. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 11/19/09) (plh)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 4, 2010

Filing 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and ORDER OF DISMISSAL - denying 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Adopting 10 Report and Recommendation filed by Howard Lee Barnes. Ordered that the Civil Rights Complaint filed by pltf is dismissed without prejudice to refiling with prepayment of the filing fee. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 3/4/2010) (plh) Modified on 3/5/2010 (jeh).

November 19, 2009

Filing 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Because pltf has already sustained the "three strikes" and can no loner avail himself of the provisions for proceeding ifp, it is the recommendation of the Mag Judge to the Dist Judge that pltf's request to proceed ifp be denied and that the instant cause be dismissed for failure to pay the requisite filing fee. Permission to proceed ifp is granted temporarily and solely for the purpose of allowing a R&R to issue and be considered by the US Dist Judge. Pltf is advised that if he pays the $350.00 filing fee within 14 days after the filing date hereof, this R&R of dismissal will be withdrawn. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Clinton E Averitte on 11/19/09) (plh)

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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Barnes v. Livingston
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Howard Lee Barnes
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 ]
Defendant: Brad Livingston
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.

Why Is My Information Online?