Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation
This text of Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation (Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTINA HALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated PLAINTIFF
No. 3:18-cv-235-DPM
INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION; and RANDY CAGLE, JR. DEFENDANTS
ORDER 1. Cagle’s and Inmate Services’ counsel’s unopposed motion to withdraw, Ne 61, is partly granted and partly denied. Ross Webster and Glankler Brown, PLLC, are relieved as counsel of record for Cagle, but must stay on as counsel for Inmate Services until new counsel for it has appeared. The corporation must have a lawyer. Carr Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 698 F.2d 952, 953 (8th Cir. 1983). Cagle will proceed pro se. 2. Mr. Webster must mail a copy of this Order to Cagle. So Ordered. AP 4b ge D.P. Marshall jr. United States District Judge 24 Khvay 2020
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hall v. Inmate Services Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-inmate-services-corporation-ared-2020.