1:26-cv-01307 ALLEN et al v. WILLIAMS et al
Proceed In Forma Pauperis ( 2
Luis Armando Guzman Velasco filed a case against Shannon Dicus and others in the District of Columbia. The court granted the plaintiff permission to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing the case to move forward without prepayment of fees due to the plaintiff's financial status.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
Court
D.D.C.
District of Columbia · D.C. Circuit · DC
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
1:26-cv-01307 ALLEN et al v. WILLIAMS et al
Other · May 05, 2026
Coverage
3 articles
3 sources tracked
Participants
2 Defendants, 2 Plaintiffs
6 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
This case is tied to District of Columbia, a federal district court in DC.
The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 05, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes Shannon Dicus, Travel Caddy, Inc, 5:26-cv-01307 Luis Armando Guzman Velasco and others.
Press monitoring has found 3 related articles from 3 distinct sources.
Luis Armando Guzman Velasco v. Shannon Dicus et al is an active civil matter in District of Columbia under docket 26-cv-01307.
The dispute currently identifies 1:26-cv-01307 Shenzhen Stronger Technology Co., Ltd and 5:26-cv-01307 Luis Armando Guzman Velasco on one side and Shannon Dicus and Travel Caddy, Inc on the other. The case is currently organized around Lawsuit filed, Shannon Dicus, Unknown case status.
The available docket gives enough signal to track the case, but not enough to overstate the merits. This page will become more useful as filings, orders, hearings, and party appearances add detail.
On May 5, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted Luis Armando Guzman Velasco permission to proceed with his lawsuit without paying the required filing fee. This decision allows Velasco to continue with his case despite financial constraints. The court's ruling is significant because it.
On April 27, 2026, the docket recorded a other: A new case was filed in the court, 1:26-cv-01307, with Shenzhen Stronger Technology Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff and Travel Caddy, Inc. as the defendant.
This case is unrelated to the original case, Luis Armando Guzman Velasco v. Shannon Dicus et al. The filing.
On April 22, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted a motion to dismiss in the case of Luis Armando Guzman Velasco v. Shannon Dicus et al, case number 5:26-cv-01307. This means that the defendants' request to end the lawsuit was approved.
The plaintiff's claims against the defendants will no.
The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.
District of Columbia (D.D.C.) is a federal district court in the D.C. Circuit, DC.
The court granted Luis Armando Guzman Velasco permission to proceed with his lawsuit without paying the required filing fee. This decision allows Velasco to continue with his case despite financial constraints. The court's ruling is significant because it enables Velasco to pursue his claims against Shannon Dicus et al.
A new case was filed in the court, 1:26-cv-01307, with Shenzhen Stronger Technology Co., Ltd. as the plaintiff and Travel Caddy, Inc. as the defendant. This case is unrelated to the original case, Luis Armando Guzman Velasco v. Shannon Dicus et al. The filing of this new case does not directly impact the Guzman Velasco case.
The court granted a motion to dismiss in the case of Luis Armando Guzman Velasco v. Shannon Dicus et al, case number 5:26-cv-01307. This means that the defendants' request to end the lawsuit was approved. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants will no longer proceed.
Proceed In Forma Pauperis ( 2
Sources tracked
3 outlets · 3 articles
Timeline events
3 records on file
Last updated
2 days, 5 hours ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.