Burton v. Carr
| Bobby E Burton |
| Mr. NFN Carr |
| 5:2022cv00270 |
| October 17, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| James Wesley Hendrix |
| 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 November 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in the Court's order entered today it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that Plaintiff's civil-rights complaint is dismissed pursuant to the three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 11/22/2022) (lkw)
|
|
Filing 6
Order: Plaintiff Bobby E. Burton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights complaint, but he did not pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Burton has had at least three civil actions dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Because Burton has accumulated three "strikes," he may not proceed IFP in this action unless he can demonstrate that, at the time he filed his complaint, he was under imminent danger of serious bodily injury. Because Burton may not proceed IFP in this action and has not paid the filing fee, his civil-rights complaint is dismissed without prejudice as barred by the three-strikes provision of Section 1915(g) and for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). If Burton refiles his complaint, he must file it on the court-approved form and pay the full filing fee of $402.00 with administrative costs. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 11/22/2022) (lkw)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:6,7. Tue Nov 22 13:32:37 CST 2022 (crt) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY. Plaintiff must address the following deficiency: Plaintiff did not pay the $402 filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis with a certificate of his inmate trust account. Therefore, by November 15, 2022 (30 days), Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the $402 filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the approved form with the required certificate of inmate trust account. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).The required forms are available in the law library of Plaintiffs current prison unit. (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 10/18/2022) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC NOTICE OF JUDICIAL SCREENING AND STANDING ORDER: Judicial screening of this case is pending. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). It is therefore ORDERED that (1) service of process will be withheld until judicial screening is complete, (2) no motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the Court has completed the screening process, (3) all discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is filed or until further order, (4) no amendments or supplements may be filed without prior Court approval, and (5) any motion to amend the complaint must be accompanied by a complete proposed amended complaint on the required form. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff must promptly notify the Court in writing of any change of address. Failure to provide updated address information may result in the dismissal of the case under Fed. R. Civ. 41(b). (Ordered by Judge James Wesley Hendrix on 10/18/2022) (chmb)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:4, 5. Clerk mailed NEFs to Plaintiff Tue Oct 18 12:19:16 CDT 2022 (crt) |
| Filing 3 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. 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. (lkw) |
| Filing 2 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party (lkw) (Main Document 2 replaced on 10/17/2022 to add corrected document) (lkw). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against NFN Carr filed by Bobby E Burton. 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. (lkw) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1, 2, 3 and 2254 and 1983 forms as requested per #1 Complaint) Mon Oct 17 13:24:04 CDT 2022 (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: Burton v. Carr | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bobby E Burton | |
| 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: Mr. NFN Carr | |
| 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.
