Partain v. Hallmark et al
| Marshall Ray Partain |
| Officer J. Hallmark, Officer S. Malero, Officer Jason Hallmark and Officer Sharday Nelero |
| 1:2021cv00829 |
| September 16, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Dustin M Howell |
| Robert Pitman |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Text Order DENYING #11 Motion for Default Judgment entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Although the Court ordered service on the defendants on October 11, 2021, the Clerk of Court did not issue summons until November 8, 2021. As the defendants have not yet been served, they are not in default. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tmj)
|
|
Filing 11
MOTION for Default Judgment by Marshall Ray Partain.. Motions referred to Judge Dustin M. Howell. (cc3)
|
|
Filing 10
Summons Issued as to J. Hallmark and S. Malero. C/O Meghan Riley, City of Austin (cc3)
|
|
Text Order GRANTING #8 Motion to Amend Original Complaint with Defendants' Correct Full Names and Badge Numbers entered by Judge Dustin M. Howell. Officer Jason Hallmark, Badge #6307, is substituted for the defendant previously identified as Officer J. Hallmark, and Officer Sharday Nelero, Badge #8771, is substituted for the defendant previously identified as Officer S. Malero. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tmj)
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE to the court of documents served to defense counsel by Marshall Ray Partain. (cc3)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION to Amend Complaint by Marshall Ray Partain.. Motions referred to Judge Dustin M. Howell. (cc3)
|
|
Text Order DENYING #7 Motion to Appoint Counsel entered by Judge Dustin M. Howell. The Court has applied the factors delineated in Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982) to the case at hand. Plaintiff has not, as of this date, established to this Court's satisfaction that the issues are too complex, that complainant is incapable of bringing them, or that appointed counsel is necessary to present meritorious issues to the Court. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tmj)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION to Appoint Counsel and Jury Demand by Marshall Ray Partain. Motions referred to Judge Dustin M. Howell. (cc3)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER OF SERVICE. Signed by Judge Dustin M. Howell. (cc3)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Marshall Ray Partain. Signed by Judge Dustin M. Howell. (cc3)
|
|
Filing 4
Case Opening Letter mailed to Marshall Ray Partain. (cj)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (cj)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Marhsall Ray Partain.. Motions referred to Judge Dustin M. Howell. (cj)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT, filed by Marhsall Ray Partain. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet and Envelope)(cj)
|
|
If ordered by the court, all referrals and consents in this case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Howell (cj)
|
|
Case assigned Judge Robert Pitman. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (cj)
|
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 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.
