Robertson v. Rodiguez et al
Plaintiff: Michael Otis Robertson
Defendant: Rodiguez and Eric S Higgins
Case Number: 4:2022cv00608
Filed: June 30, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Presiding Judge: Jerome T Kearney
Referring Judge: Billy Roy Wilson
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 27, 2022 Filing 18 NOTICE by Michael Otis Robertson. (jbh)
July 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER of USCA as to 12 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Otis Robertson: 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. (jbh)
July 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER of USCA as to 12 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Otis Robertson: The district court has determined that Appellant has three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Accordingly, Appellant may not proceed in this appeal without first paying the full appellate docketing fee. Appellant is directed to pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court the appellate docketing fee of $505, or to file a pleading in this court explaining why Appellant is eligible to proceed without pre-payment of the fee. If appellant fails to either pay the fee or respond to this order within 30 days of the date of this order, the appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Compliance is due 8/22/2022. (jbh)
July 21, 2022 Filing 15 USCA Docketing Letter as to 12 Notice of Appeal filed by Michael Otis Robertson. USCA Case Number 22-2543. (jbh)
July 20, 2022 Filing 14 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL and NOA SUPPLEMENT as to 12 Notice of Appeal re #5 Order, #6 Judgment. (jbh)
July 20, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 13 (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no pdf document associated with this entry.) ORDER denying #10 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case and #11 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 07/20/22. (dmm)
July 20, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #5 Order, #6 Judgment by Michael Otis Robertson. [No separate document filed, see docket entry #11 . (jbh)
July 20, 2022 Filing 11 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Michael Otis Robertson. (jbh)
July 20, 2022 Filing 10 MOTION to Reopen Case by Michael Otis Robertson. (jbh)
July 14, 2022 Filing 9 INFORMATION by Michael Otis Robertson. (llg)
July 13, 2022 Filing 8 OBJECTION to #3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Michael Otis Robertson. (llg)
July 11, 2022 Filing 7 APPELLATE FILING FEE NOTICE to Plaintiff. (jbh)
July 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 JUDGMENT: Based on the #5 order entered today, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 7/11/2022. (jbh)
July 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER adopting #3 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice; denying as moot #1 , #4 IFP Motions; directing Plaintiff to submit the statutory filing and administrative fee of $402.00 to the Clerk, noting the above case style and number, within 15 days of the date of this Order, together with a motion to reopen the case; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 7/11/2022. (jbh)
July 8, 2022 Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Michael Otis Robertson. (llg)
July 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that: #2 Complaint be dismissed without prejudice; #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot; that if Plaintiff wishes to continue this case, he be required to submit the statutory filing and administrative fee of $402.00 to the Clerk, within 15 days of the date of this Order, together with a motion to reopen the case; and that the Court certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Objections due within 14 days of this Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 7/7/2022. (ldb)
June 30, 2022 Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Michael Otis Robertson. (llg)
June 30, 2022 Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Michael Otis Robertson. (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 this case: Robertson v. Rodiguez et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Otis Robertson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rodiguez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Eric S Higgins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?