Estes v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al
| Bruce A. Estes |
| Melvin Davis, Virginia Department of Corrections, Wendy Brown, Frederick Russell, The Faith Review Committee of VADOC, Melissa Welch, Mariea LeFevers, Bernard Morris and Mack Bailey |
| 7:2024cv00711 |
| October 17, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| Elizabeth K Dillon |
| C Kailani Memmer |
| 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 October 17, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 2
Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 USC 1983; Regarding Prisoner Trust Account; Statement of Assets; 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge C. Kailani Memmer on 10/17/2024. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Mack Bailey, Wendy Brown, Melvin Davis, Mariea LeFevers, Bernard Morris, Frederick Russell, The Faith Review Committee of VADOC, Virginia Department of Corrections, Melissa Welch, filed by Bruce A. Estes. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Declaration)(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.
