Estep v. Baker, et al
| TINA HURLEY, INA HOWARD-HOGAN, PAUL MICHAEL TRESELER, SHEILA DUPRE, TONOMEY ALEXANDER COLEMAN, LUCY SOTO-ABBE, CHARLENE BONNER, CHARLES D. BAKER, Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD, all current members of the Massachusetts Parole Board, DANIEL BENNETT, Secretary of Public Safety and MASSACHUSETTS PAROLE BOARD |
| THOMAS R. ESTEP |
| 19-1211 |
| February 27, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| NOTICE of default and intent to dismiss issued. This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 3(a) and 1st Cir. R. 45.0 for failure to prosecute unless the required PLRA forms are properly completed and filed with this office or the full filing fee is paid to the clerk of the district court by 05/10/2019. [19-1211] (GK) [Entered: 04/26/2019 09:37 AM] |
| PLRA RESPONSE filed by Appellant Thomas R. Estep. [19-1211] (GB) [Entered: 04/12/2019 01:46 PM] |
| BRIEFING schedule set. Brief due 04/30/2019 for appellant Thomas R. Estep. Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 31(a), appellee's brief will be due 30 days following service of appellant's brief and appellant's reply brief will be due 21 days following service of appellee's brief. [19-1211] (GB) [Entered: 03/21/2019 03:47 PM] |
| PLRA LETTER issued. IFP was granted in district court. PLRA forms sent. PLRA response due 04/04/2019. [19-1211] (GB) [Entered: 03/21/2019 03:07 PM] |
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #57) filed by Appellant Thomas R. Estep. Fee due 03/13/2019 . [19-1211] (GB) [Entered: 02/27/2019 12:18 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
