Harshman v. Chaplin, et al
| SHEILA COFFIN HARSHMAN, individually and by special appearance |
| ZHENGPING SHANG, MARK MULLANEY, ANTHONY ALVA, TOM MILLAR, Deputy Sheriff, ANNE KENNEY CHAPLIN, in their official capacity as Housing Court Judge and JOSEPH B. MCINTYRE, in their official capacity as Clerk-Magistrate |
| 25-1475 |
| May 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 5, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MANDATE issued. [25-1475] (GB) [Entered: 08/05/2025 03:56 AM] |
| JUDGMENT entered by Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge; William J. Kayatta, Jr., Appellate Judge and Seth Robert Aframe, Appellate Judge. Dismissed. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 07/14/2025 12:31 PM] |
| MOTION to reconsider order [ # 6731473-2 ] filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 07/07/2025 04:33 PM] |
| SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM on jurisdiction filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 07/07/2025 04:12 PM] |
ORDER denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 06/25/2025 03:19 PM]
|
| SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE of material developments & procedural obstruction with exhibits filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 06/25/2025 02:50 PM] |
| NOTICE of entry of appearance by appellees and procedural clarification filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. Served on 06/11/2025. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 06/13/2025 01:55 PM] |
| NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Appellees Anne Kenney Chaplin and Joseph B. Mcintyre filed by Attorney Aaron Macris. Served on 06/11/2025. [25-1475] (AM) [Entered: 06/11/2025 01:30 PM] |
| NOTICE of supplemental authority and factual developments filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. Certificate of service was not included. [25-1475] (JMK) [Entered: 06/10/2025 03:50 PM] |
| NOTICE of filing the following transcript(s) in district court by Court Reporter Jamie Halpin: 05/14/2025, Motion Hearing. In accordance with Judicial Conference Policy, the transcript will not be available to the public by remote electronic access for ninety days after the filing date. During that ninety day period, the transcript may be purchased through the court reporter or viewed at the public terminal at the district court. [25-1475] (JMK) [Entered: 06/09/2025 10:40 AM] |
| RULE 28(j) letter of supplemental authority filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 06/24/2025 11:24 AM] |
| MOTION to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to replace an attachment. (GRC) [Entered: 05/30/2025 06:08 PM] |
|
ORDER entered by David J. Barron, Chief Appellate Judge; William J. Kayatta, Jr., Appellate Judge and Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge: This matter is before the court on Plaintiff-Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman's filing captioned "Supplemental Notice of Emergency Developments." By order entered May 21, 2025, the court denied appellant's motion seeking stay relief on an emergency basis and directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of finality. See generally 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292. The current filing is construed as a motion for reconsideration of the May 21 order, and that motion is denied. Appellant's response to the order to show cause remains due ten days from entry of the May 21 order. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/28/2025 09:15 AM]
|
| RESPONSE filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman to order for lack of jurisdiction [ # 6723016-2 ]. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/28/2025 05:30 PM] |
| SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE of emergency developments filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. Certificate of service was not included. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/27/2025 12:03 PM] |
|
ORDER to Show Cause entered by David J. Barron, Chief Appellate Judge; William J. Kayatta, Jr., Appellate Judge and Julie Rikelman, Appellate Judge: This matter is before the court on filings by Plaintiff-Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman captioned as 1) "Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of Orders Pending Appeal," 2) "Appellant's Opening Brief," and 3) "Motion for Leave to File Oversized Brief." The filings and the requests set out therein are resolved as follows. The court has construed the "Opening Brief" as a memorandum in support of the motion requesting stay relief. That request for stay relief is denied because appellant has not demonstrated her entitlement to stay relief. Additionally, within ten (10) days of entry of this order, appellant should file a response to this order showing cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The response should not exceed ten (10) pages in length. Appellant's motion for leave to file an oversized opening brief is denied, without prejudice to later reassertion in the event a briefing schedule ultimately enters. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/21/2025 05:20 PM]
|
| EMERGENCY MOTION to stay enforcement of orders pending appeal filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to replace an attachment. (GRC) [Entered: 05/20/2025 11:55 AM] |
| PLEADING tendered: brief filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/20/2025 12:36 PM] |
| MOTION for leave to file oversized brief filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. Certificate of service was not included. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/20/2025 12:35 PM] |
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #21) filed by Appellant Sheila Coffin Harshman. Fee due 06/03/2025. [25-1475] (GRC) [Entered: 05/20/2025 11:49 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
