Williams v. Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail et al
| Na'John DeAndre Tariq Williams |
| Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, Major Carver and Colonel Kumer |
| 7:2024cv00153 |
| February 29, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| James P Jones |
| Pamela Meade Sargent |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
Consent to Fee by Plaintiff Na'John DeAndre Tariq Williams (tvt)
|
|
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 30 days. Responses due by 4/2/2024. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 2/29/2024. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)
|
|
Filing 2
Prisoner Trust Account Report and Statement of Assets by Na'John DeAndre Tariq Williams (aab)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail, Carver, Kumer, filed by Na'John DeAndre Tariq Williams. (Attachments: #1 ICC Response and Grievances)(aab)
|
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.
