Rowe v. Holloway et al
| Uhuru Baraka Rowe |
| L. Shaw, B. Perkins, M. Bradley, Beth E. Cabell, K. Clark, Wanda Rollins, C. Coleman, M. Carpenter, Tony Darden, Gregory L. Holloway and L. Taylor |
| 3:2019cv00418 |
| June 5, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Robert E Payne |
| Roderick C Young |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
MEMORANDUM ORDER that Rowe is directed to show good cause, within 20 days of the date of entry hereof, why he should be permitted to litigate a second action pro se while he has a similar action pending. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Memorandum Order to Rowe and to counsel for Rowe in Rowe v. Clarke, No. 3:18CV780. See Order for additional details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/2/2019. Copy mailed to Rowe and sent electronically to counsel as directed. (jsmi, )
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Uhuru Baraka Rowe. (tjoh, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against M. Bradley, Beth E. Cabell, M. Carpenter, K. Clark, C. Coleman, Tony Darden, Gregory L. Holloway, B. Perkins, Wanda Rollins, L. Shaw, L. Taylor, filed by Uhuru Baraka Rowe. (Attachments: #1 Letter, #2 Affidavit, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C, #6 Exhibit D, #7 Envelope)(tjoh, ) |
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 Virginia Eastern 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.
