Franklin v. Naph Care Inc. et al
| Shawn Lamont Franklin |
| Naph Care Inc., Roanoke City Jail, S. Walsh and Roanoke Sherrif Dept. |
| 7:2022cv00245 |
| May 6, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| Joel C Hoppe |
| Michael F Urbanski |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 4, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
Additional Evidence- Regarding Medical Care by Shawn Lamont Franklin (aab)
|
|
Filing 4
Consent to Fee by Plaintiff Shawn Lamont Franklin (aab)
|
|
Filing 3
Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 USC 1983; Regarding Consent to Fee; Advising inmate as to 3 strikes rule of PLRA; Assessing a filing fee; Deferring all action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal within 20 days. Responses due by 6/1/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe on 5/9/2022. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
|
|
Filing 2
Prisoner Trust Account Report and statement of Assets by Shawn Lamont Franklin (Attachments: #1 Statement of Assets)(slt)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Naph Care Inc., Roanoke City Jail, Roanoke Sherrif Dept., S. Walsh, filed by Shawn Lamont Franklin. (Attachments: #1 Sick Call Request)(slt)
|
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 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.
