Green v. Finch et al
| Sgt. FNU Vaughn |
| Lowell Quincy Green |
| Officer John Finch, I.J. Jones, Hon Matt Johnson and Officer FNU Blatche |
| 6:2018cv00313 |
| October 22, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Alan D Albright |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Text Order DISMISSING #3 Motion to Challenge Judge Pitman's Ruling entered by Judge Alan D Albright. Plaintiff's complaint in this case has already been dismissed pursuant to the three-dismissal rule of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tb)
|
| Filing 3 MOTION To Challenge Judge Pitman's Unconstitutional Application 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a) "Three Strikes" by Lowell Quincy Green. (mc5) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER re #1 Complaint filed by Lowell Quincy Green. Plaintiff is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and his complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the three-dismissal rule of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Plaintiffs complaint may be reinstated only if the full filing fee of $400 is paid simultaneously with the filing of a motion to reinstate. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT, filed by Lowell Quincy Green.(lad) |
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.
