Green v. De la Cruz et al
| Sidney Green |
| Stephanie De la Cruz, Martha Clayton and Lorema Key |
| 3:2023cv00476 |
| July 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| David J Novak |
| Labor: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER (Dismissing Case for Failure to Comply with Court Orders) The Court hereby DISMISSES this case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow Court orders, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (b), and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 9/6/2023. Copy of Order mailed to Plaintiff. (adun, )
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sidney Green. (Attachments: #1 Local Rule 83.1) (smej, ) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE - Service Address re Virginia Employment Commission by Sidney Green (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (smej, ) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Pro Se E-Noticing. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 8/11/2023. (Copy electronically sent to plaintiff) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER (Denying Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Ordering Particularized Complaint) - The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently complete a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and, therefore, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to refile an amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, or to pay the filing fee. Specifically, Plaintiff must complete the sections that she previously left blank on her initial Motion, including (but not limited to) the Application's questions regarding monthly income sources and monthly expenses. it is hereby ORDERED that, within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall file a particularized amended complaint that outlines in simple and straightforward terms why Plaintiff thinks that she is entitled to relief and why the Court has jurisdiction over this case, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) and (2). The particularized amended complaint must be legible and preferably created using a word processor, such as Microsoft Word. Plaintiff must also resubmit the Ghostwriting Form in accordance with Local Rule 83.1 (M), which the Court requires to be filed with her submission stating that she did not receive assistance in preparing her proposed particularized amended complaint. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge David J. Novak on 8/11/2023. (Copy of Order, IFP Long Form, and Ghostwriting form mailed to plaintiff) (smej, )
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Pro Se E-Noticing by Sidney Green. (smej, ) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Sidney Green. (Attachments: #1 Complaint - Received) (smej, ) |
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.
