legal-news

Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al

25-cv-03551
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Martin Gonzalez Vazquez filed a lawsuit against the Warden and others. The case is currently at the filing fee or IFP due stage. The docket number is 25-cv-03551. The court has not been specified. The case is in its early stages, and no further information is available at this time.

Latest development

1:26-cv-04598 WILLIAMSON v. WARDEN et al

Filing · April 27, 2026

The court has filed a notice in the case of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al, indicating that a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is due. This means that the plaintiff has 3 days to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application. If the fee is not paid or the IFP application is not submitted, the case may be dismissed.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • • filing fee
  • • IFP
  • • early stages
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
description
Filing 4 days ago
The court has filed a notice in the case of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al, indicating that a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is due. This means that the plaintiff has 3 days to pay the filing fee or
receipt_long Source (filing) expand_more

Letter: Filing Fee or IFP due ( 3

Open original open_in_new

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

7 events
info
Other May 1, 2026

2:26-cv-04915 ACUNA MUNOZ v. WARDEN et al

The court has received a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the case of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al. This petition challenges the legality of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez's detention. The court will now review the petition to determine if it has merit.

description View filing open_in_new
info
Other May 1, 2026

1:22-cv-06130 BONNER v. WARREN et al

The court granted a motion to consolidate the case of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al with 1:22-cv-06130 BONNER v. WARREN et al. This consolidation will allow the two cases to be heard together, potentially streamlining the litigation process. The consolidation is significant because it may reduce the overall cost and time required to resolve the cases.

description View filing open_in_new
info
Other May 1, 2026

1:26-cv-21998 Hernandez v. Warden et al

A Notice of Compliance was filed.

description View filing open_in_new
info
Other April 28, 2026

2:22-cv-06663 ARRO-MARK CO. LLC v. WARREN et al

The court has scheduled a hearing for 2:22-cv-06663 ARRO-MARK CO. LLC v. WARREN et al, a case unrelated to Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al. This hearing is a separate matter and does not directly impact the Martin Gonzalez Vazquez case. The hearing will take place in the court's docket.

description View filing open_in_new
info
Other April 28, 2026

1:26-cv-21138 Mena Antonio v. WARDEN, et al

The court has consolidated the case of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al with another case, Mena Antonio v. Warden et al. This means that the two cases will be heard together, potentially streamlining the legal process. The consolidation may also impact the outcome of the cases.

description View filing open_in_new
description
Filing April 27, 2026

1:26-cv-04598 WILLIAMSON v. WARDEN et al

The court has filed a notice in the case of Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al, indicating that a filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is due. This means that the plaintiff has 3 days to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application. If the fee is not paid or the IFP application is not submitted, the case may be dismissed.

description View filing open_in_new
info
Other April 27, 2026

5:25-cv-03551 Martin Gonzalez Vazquez v. Warden et al

The court granted Martin Gonzalez Vazquez's motion for attorney fees in the amount of $10. This decision allows Vazquez to recover costs associated with his legal representation. The ruling is significant because it affects the financial burden on the plaintiff.

description View filing open_in_new
Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

7 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

3 outlets · 7 articles

Timeline events

7 records on file

Last updated

1 day, 12 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.