Smith v. Garland et al
Joseph P. Smith |
Merrick B. Garland and U.S. Marshals Service |
3:2023cv00395 |
October 27, 2023 |
US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
Kathleen Cardone |
Civil Rights: Other |
42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
|
Reset Deadlines: Merrick B. Garland answer due 1/28/2024; U.S. Marshals Service answer due 1/28/2024. (dt) |
Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Joseph P. Smith. Merrick B. Garland served on 10/26/2023, answer due 11/16/2023; U.S. Marshals Service served on 10/27/2023, answer due 11/17/2023. (dt) |
Filing 5 RESPONSE to Motion, filed by Joseph P. Smith, re #3 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Defendant U.S. Marshals Service, Defendant Merrick B. Garland (dt) |
Filing 4 ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Marshals Service . (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A- Plaintiff's email communication on Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time)(Saenz, Angelica) |
Filing 3 Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Marshals Service. (Saenz, Angelica) |
Filing 2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (ep1) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 1753), filed by Joseph P. Smith. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 receipt)(ep1) |
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.