Paiva v. Coyne-Fague, et al
| RICHARD LEE PAIVA |
| PATRICIA ANNE COYNE-FAGUE, individually and in her Official Capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS |
| 21-1746 |
| October 1, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER granting motion to extend time to file brief and appendix filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Brief due 12/29/2021 for appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Appendix due 12/29/2021 for appellant Richard Lee Paiva. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 11/29/2021 11:19 AM]
|
| MOTION to extend time to file brief and appendix filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Certificate of service dated 11/29/2021. [21-1746] (SLD) [Entered: 11/29/2021 09:34 AM] |
|
ORDER directing payment of the filing fee under PLRA. [21-1746] (KPC) [Entered: 11/24/2021 10:26 AM]
|
| PLRA RESPONSE filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 11/18/2021 12:07 PM] |
|
ORDER entered: On October 29, 2021, this court received appellant Richard Lee Paiva's Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) Form 1 and prisoner trust account report. We note that the prisoner trust account report is deficient in that the report does not span the full six months preceding appellant's notice of appeal dated September 20, 2021, which would include the period beginning March 20, 2021 and ending on September 20, 2021 . Accordingly, the time to file PLRA Form 1 and compliant certified prisoner trust account report is enlarged to November 17, 2021 . [21-1746] (KPC) [Entered: 11/03/2021 11:19 AM]
|
| PLRA RESPONSE filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/29/2021 01:29 PM] |
|
ORDER entered: On October 18, 2021, this court received appellant Richard Lee Paiva's Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) Form 1, Form 2, and prisoner trust account report. We note that the prisoner trust account report is deficient in that the report does not span the full six months preceding appellant's notice of appeal dated September 20, 2021, which would include the period beginning March 20, 2021 and ending on September 20, 2021 . Accordingly, the time to file PLRA Form 1 and compliant certified prisoner trust account report is enlarged to November 4, 2021 . [21-1746] (KPC) [Entered: 10/21/2021 09:00 AM]
|
| BRIEFING schedule set. Brief due 11/29/2021 for appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Appendix due 11/29/2021 for appellant Richard Lee Paiva. 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. Please see the court's general order issued April 20, 2020, requiring the electronic filing of appendices. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/19/2021 10:07 AM] |
| NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Appellant Richard Lee Paiva filed by Attorney Sonja L Deyoe. Certificate of service dated 10/19/2021. [21-1746] (SLD) [Entered: 10/19/2021 09:44 AM] |
| NOTICE of default and intent to dismiss issued. The appellant is directed to file an appearance form and docketing statement or this case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution in accordance with 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b). Appearance form due 11/02/2021. Docketing Statement due 11/02/2021. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/19/2021 09:21 AM] |
| DOCKETING statement filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Certificate of service dated 10/19/2021. [21-1746] (SLD) [Entered: 10/19/2021 09:45 AM] |
| NOTICE of change of address filed pro se by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/18/2021 04:17 PM] |
| PLRA RESPONSE filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Certificate of service was not included. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/18/2021 04:21 PM] |
| PLRA LETTER issued. IFP was granted in district court. PLRA forms sent. PLRA response due 10/19/2021. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/05/2021 09:33 AM] |
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #21) filed by Appellant Richard Lee Paiva. Docketing Statement due 10/15/2021. Fee due 10/15/2021. Appearance form due 10/15/2021. [21-1746] (CMP) [Entered: 10/01/2021 12:14 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.
| Search for this case: Paiva v. Coyne-Fague, 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 / appellant: RICHARD LEE PAIVA | |
| Represented By: | Sonja Linnea Deyoe |
| Represented By: | Richard Lee Paiva |
| 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 / appellee: PATRICIA ANNE COYNE-FAGUE, individually and in her Official Capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections | |
| Represented By: | Ian Paul Anderson |
| 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 / appellee: RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | |
| Represented By: | Ian Paul Anderson |
| 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.
