Hughes v. Smith et al
| Tarrell Hughes |
| Megan Smith, Andy LNU, US Marshalls Agent # 2, US Marshalls Agent # 3, FBI and United States Attorney General |
| 2:2023cv00473 |
| July 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| David Barlow |
| Cecilia M Romero |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF NON-CONSENT Consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge under DUCivR 72-4 has not been obtained. Case randomly assigned to Judge David Barlow and Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero is automatically referred under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero no longer assigned as the presiding judge to the case. (mh)
|
|
Filing 6
RECEIVED Consent/Reassignment Form from Plaintiff Tarrell Hughes. (mh)
|
|
Filing 5
COMPLAINT against Andy LNU, Megan Smith (Originally received by the court on 07/21/2023). (Fee Status: IFP) filed by Tarrell Hughes. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet ) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero (haa)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court willscreen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and Local Civil Rule DUCivR 3-2(b). Plaintiff may complete and return forms provided by the court. The clerks office is directed to provide Plaintiff with the magistrate judge consent/reassignment form and the email filing and electronic notification form for unrepresented parties. Plaintiff must not file any motions or other documents during the time the case is screened or until the court orders otherwise, except court forms (such as the email filing and electronic notification form and the consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction form). If such documents are filed, they will be lodged on the docket and will not be addressed until screening is completed. The time to serve the complaint is tolled until further order of the court. If the action is allowed to proceed, the court will order service of process on the defendant(s). Signed by Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero on 07/25/2023. (haa)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF - This case is assigned to a magistrate judge. Under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, you are hereby notified that a magistrate judge for the District of Utah may conduct any or all proceedings in this case, including a jury or bench trial and entry of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by the magistrate judge is permitted only if all parties voluntarily sign and return the form. To consent, return the Consent Form to the clerk's office within 21 days via email at consents@utd.uscourts.gov or mail at the address on the form and place Attention: Consent Clerk on the envelope. Please do not e-file the Consent Form in the case. Notice e-mailed or mailed to Plaintiff Tarrell Hughes. Form due by 8/11/2023. (mh)
|
|
Filing 2
DOCUMENTS LODGED consisting of Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet. Note: attached document lodged for reference purposes only; no response required unless specifically ordered by the court. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ks)
|
|
Filing 1
**SEALED DOCUMENT** MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M Romero for review, case file forwarded to Magistrate Judge. (Received by the court on: 7/21/2023) filed by Plaintiff Tarrell Hughes. (ks)
|
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 Utah 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.
