Howitt v. Harvard Book Store, et al
| DAN HOWITT |
| HARVARD BOOK STORE, JEFFREY MAYERSOHN, MARNIE MURRAY and JILIAN KRAVATZ |
| 26-1237 |
| March 9, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Amer. w/Disabilities - Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 10, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| JUDGMENT dismissing case pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(2). [26-1237] (ATC) [Entered: 04/10/2026 10:26 AM] |
| MANDATE issued. [26-1237] (ATC) [Entered: 04/10/2026 10:28 AM] |
| MOTION to dismiss case filed by Appellant Dan Howitt. Served on 04/09/2026. [26-1237] (DH) [Entered: 04/09/2026 12:01 PM] |
ORDER to Show Cause entered: On March 3, 2026, plaintiff-appellant Dan Howitt filed a pro se notice of appeal (No. 24) from the order of dismissal and the order denying motion for equitable tolling entered on January 13, 2026, in No. 1:25-cv-10502-DJC (D. Mass.), which this court has docketed as Appeal No. 26-1237. This appeal is duplicative of Appeal No. 26-1087, the notice of appeal (No. 16) filed on January 22, 2026. Since two cases are not necessary to appeal the January 13, 2026, order of dismissal, including the denial of equitable tolling, plaintiff-appellant is ordered either to move for voluntary dismissal of Appeal No. 26-1237 pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or to show cause, in writing, why both cases should remain open. The failure to take either action by April 22, 2026 , may result in dismissal of Appeal No. 26-1237 for lack of diligent prosecution. 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b). [26-1237] (ATC) [Entered: 04/08/2026 08:17 AM]
|
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #24) filed by Appellant Dan Howitt. [26-1237] (ATC) [Entered: 03/09/2026 12:09 PM] |
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.
