Knowles v. Duke et al
| Kent Knowles |
| David Duke and Wichita County, Texas |
| 7:2018cv00104 |
| July 13, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Wichita Falls Office |
| Wichita |
| Reed C O'Connor |
| Hal R Ray |
| Civil Rights: Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 21, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER. On August 20, 2018, Defendant Wichita County, Texas filed a Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 12) to file an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. (ECF No. 1). Defendant requests an extension of time to answer until 20 days after Plaintiff files an amended complaint. For good cause shown, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant file its answer on or before 20 days after Plaintiff files his amended complaint, but no later than October 15, 2018. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr on 8/21/2018) (trt)
|
| Filing 12 Second MOTION to Extend Time Second filed by Wichita County, Texas (Kennedy, Meredith) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Dismissal of David Duke F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) filed by Kent Knowles (Bunch, Rickey) |
| Filing 10 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to David Duke ; served on 7/30/2018. (Bunch, Rickey) |
| Filing 9 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Wichita County, Texas ; served on 7/17/2018., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kent Knowles (Bunch, Rickey) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER granting #7 Defendant Wichita County, Texas' Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Answer. Wichita County, Texas answer due 8/21/2018. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr on 8/3/2018) (plp)
|
| Filing 7 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Wichita County, Texas Attorney Meredith L Kennedy added to party Wichita County, Texas(pty:dft) (Kennedy, Meredith) |
| Filing 6 AFFIDAVIT re #1 Complaint, #2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Kent Knowles. (plp) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF REFERENCE FOR PRETRIAL MANAGEMENT: This case is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Ray for pretrial management. All non-dispositive motions are referred to the magistrate judge for determination according to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Hal R. Ray, Jr on 7/13/2018) (skg)
|
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (skg) |
| Filing 3 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. File to: No court file needed. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Ray). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (skg) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Kent Knowles. (skg) Modified event on 7/13/2018 (skg). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/13/2018: #1 Proposed Temporary Restraining Order) (skg). |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Kent Knowles. (Filing fee $400.00; Receipt number WF002637) 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. (skg) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/13/2018: #1 Cover Sheet) (skg). |
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
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.
