Nance v. Doe et al
| Lavell Nance |
| Officer John Doe and Milwaukee Sheriff |
| 2:2018cv02025 |
| December 26, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin |
| David E Jones |
| Prisoner: Conditions of Confinement |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 15, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 DOCUMENTS RECEIVED from Lavell Nance; Facility Procedure re: disbursement request. (amb) |
| Filing 6 Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form filed by Lavell Nance. (NOTICE: Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 this document is not viewable by the judge.) (amb) |
| Filing 5 Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form filed by Lavell Nance. (NOTICE: Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 this document is not viewable by the judge.) (amb) |
| Filing 4 LETTER from plaintiff requesting copy of #3 Letter be resent. Sent letter and Consent/Refusal to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge Form to plaintiff via US Mail. (amb) |
| Filing 3 LETTER from the clerk to plaintiff re Consent/Refusal to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones and requesting that the consent/refusal form and prisoner trust fund account statement be filed within 21 days. (amb) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee by Lavell Nance. (amb) |
| Filing 1 PRISONER COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Lavell Nance. (amb) |
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 Wisconsin 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.
