Hodges v. Department of Social Services et al
| Michael Prince Hodges |
| Department of Social Services, Danny T.K. Avula, Margaret W. Deglau and Shannon Flinchum Meadowcroft |
| 3:2023cv00218 |
| March 30, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| M Hannah Lauck |
| 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 July 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Danny T.K. Avula, Margaret W. Deglau, Department of Social Services, and Shannon Flinchum Meadowcroft filed by Michael Prince Hodges. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N, #15 Exhibit O, #16 Exhibit P, #17 Exhibit Q, #18 List of Parties, #19 Local Rule 83.1 Certification) (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Hodges is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed by filing a Second Amended Complaint within thirty days from the date of entry of this Order to Show Cause. The Court DENIES Hodge's #6 Motion for Injunction Hearing. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 5/18/2023. Copy mailed to Hodges as directed. (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION for Injunction Hearing by Michael Prince Hodges. (Attachments: #1 Local Rule 83.1 Certification) (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER that this matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Rule 7(E) of the Local Civil Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shall not apply to this action. Any party desiring a hearing on a dispositive motion shall contact Chambers to schedule a hearing when the motion is filed. Copy mailed to the pro se plaintiff Hodges to the address on the docket sheet. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 5/5/23. (Khan, )
|
|
Filing 4
AMENDED COMPLAINT against Danny T.K. Avula, Margaret W. Deglau, Department of Social Services, and Shannon Flinchum Meadowcroft filed by Michael Prince Hodges. (Attachments: #1 Local Rule 83.1 Certification) (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 3
COMPLAINT against Danny T.K. Avula, Margaret W. Deglau, Department of Social Services, and Shannon Flinchum Meadowcroft filed by Michael Prince Hodges. (Attachments: #1 Local Rule 83.1 Certification) (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 2
ORDER that Plaintiff Michael Prince Hodges' #1 application to proceed informa pauperis is provisionally GRANTED. The Court hereby ORDERS that the Clerk shall provisionally file the proffered Complaint. It is further ORDERED that, no later than May 5, 2023, Hodges shall file an Amended Complaint, with a Ghostwriting Form attached, which outlines in simple and straightforward terms why Hodges thinks that he is entitled to relief and why the Court has jurisdiction over his case. Hodges is ADVISED that the failure to strictly comply with the Court's directives and with applicable rules will result in DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 4/5/2023. Copy of Order mailed to Hodges with a copy of a Ghostwriting Form as directed. (jsmi, )
|
|
Filing 1
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Michael Prince Hodges. (Attachments: #1 Complaint (Received), #2 Local Rule 83.1 Certification) (jsmi, )
|
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.
