Farmer v. Walker et al
| Jesse L Farmer, Jr |
| Walker and Tim Nichols |
| 4:2019cv00889 |
| December 11, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Lee P Rudofsky |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER of USCA as to #9 Notice of Appeal filed by Jesse L Farmer, Jr: The Clerk of the district court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER. (ajt)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER of USCA as to #9 Notice of Appeal filed by Jesse L Farmer, Jr: The $505 appellate filing and docketing fee has not been paid and is due. Appellant is directed to pay the fee in the district court or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court within 28 days of this order. (ajt)
|
| Filing 13 USCA Docketing Letter as to #9 Notice of Appeal filed by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. USCA Case Number 20-1206. (ajt) |
| Filing 12 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL and NOA SUPPLEMENT as to #9 Notice of Appeal re #3 Order and #4 Judgment. (ajt) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; directing Plaintiff, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, to pay to this Court the $505 appellate filing and docketing fees; or file, with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a motion with an attached affidavit that complies with each mandate of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1); and directing Plaintiff to file any future documents or pleadings related to his appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 01/30/2020. (ajt)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. (No separate document filed; see docket entry #9 .) (ajt) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #3 Order and #4 Judgment by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. (ajt) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying #7 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 01/10/2020. (ajt)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Reopen Case by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. (ljb) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. (llg) |
| Filing 5 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (ajt) |
|
Filing 4
JUDGMENT: Pursuant to #3 Order filed on 12/19/2019, it is considered, ordered, and adjudged that Plaintiff Jesse L. Farmer Jr.'s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 12/19/2019. (ajt)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER granting #1 Plaintiff's IFP application; directing monthly payments be made from Plaintiff's institutional account for the $350 filing fee; directing the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this Order to the Warden of the Ouachita River Unit, ADC Trust Fund Centralized Banking Office, and ADC Compliance Office; and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This dismissal counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 12/19/2019. (ajt)
|
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. (llg) |
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jesse L Farmer, Jr. (llg) |
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 Arkansas 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.
