Smith v. Smith
| Latonia Smith |
| M. Smith |
| 4:2023cv00509 |
| May 23, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Mark Pittman |
| Prisoner Pet/Other: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
FINAL JUDGMENT: In accordance with the order issued this same day and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 6/28/2023) (fba)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS: Now pending before the Court is a letter/motion prepared and signed by Smith in which she writes that "Plaintiff requests that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice in order togive the facility more time to respond to the grievance. Plaintiff will re-file this suit if they choose not to respond." ECF No. #7 . The Court construes thisletter/motion as a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 41(a), which will be granted. It is therefore ORDERED that the letter/motion filed June 27, 2023 (ECF No. #7 ) is construed as a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). It is further ORDERED that the motion to voluntarily dismiss (ECF No. #7 ) is GRANTED, such that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The in forma pauperis motions (ECF No. 2 and #6 ) are DISMISSED as moot. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 6/28/2023) (fba)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:8,9. Wed Jun 28 16:01:30 CDT 2023 (crt) |
| Filing 7 **Construed as a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Per ECF #8 **Update filed by Latonia Smith. (fba) Modified on 6/28/2023 (fba). |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Latonia Smith. (sre) IFP with case number thereon mailed to platiniff per STDWK. Modified on 6/6/2023 (sre). |
|
Filing 5
Order and Notice of Deficiency: Latonia Smith must address the following deficiency: It is therefore ORDERED that the clerk of Court shall take the following indicated action: A form application to proceed in forma pauperis (with cause number thereon) shall be mailed to Plaintiff along with a certificate of inmate trust account for completion and return to the clerk of Court within the time period set forth below. A prisoner civil complaint form (with cause number thereon) shall be mailed to Plaintiff for completion and signature, and then return to the clerk of Court within the time set forth below. It is further ORDERED that, if Plaintiff wishes to maintain this lawsuit, he shall cure each aforementioned deficiency within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Failure to timely comply with this order could result in the dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs complaint without further notice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 5/25/2023) (fba)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:5. And an application to proceed in forma pauperis; certificate of inmate trust account; and prisoner civil-rights complaint. Thu May 25 10:49:41 CDT 2023 (crt) |
| Filing 4 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (sre) |
| Filing 3 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) File to: appropriate staff attorney. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. Attorneys are further reminded that, if necessary, they must comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) within 14 days or risk the possible dismissal of this case without prejudice or without further notice. (sre) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Latonia Smith. (See doc #1 for document). (sre) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUEST against M. Smith filed by Latonia Smith. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (sre) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:3,4. Tue May 23 15:45:09 CDT 2023 (crt) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Smith v. Smith | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Latonia Smith | |
| 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: M. Smith | |
| 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.
