Jones v. Amazon et al
Cortez Daundre Jones |
Amazon, Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen, Andrew R Jassy and Rohit Prasad |
2:2023cv01425 |
September 12, 2023 |
US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
Jamal N Whitehead |
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on November 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 7 Mail addressed to Cortez Daundre Jones returned as Undeliverable re #3 Letter. (KRA) |
Filing 6 JUDGMENT BY COURT. Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP is DENIED. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice or leave to amend. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) |
|
Filing 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re Plaintiff's #1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court recommends Plaintiff's IFP application (dkt. #1 ) be DENIED and that Plaintiff be directed to pay the applicable filing fee within thirty (30) days. If Plaintiff fails to pay the fee, the Clerk should close the file. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (KRA) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS) |
Filing 3 LETTER to Filer re case number and Judge assignment. (cc plaintiff via USPS) (RE) |
Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis before Judge Michelle L. Peterson filed by Cortez Daundre Jones. (Attachments: #1 Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (RE) |
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 Washington 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.