In re: Young, et al
| In re: TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG |
| DEPT. OF JUSTICE and P. A. SEROSKI |
| 19-1117 |
| April 2, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| [10651008] Order filed by Clerk of the Court denying notice of dismissal filed by Petitioner Mr. Timothy Doyle Young, as contained in the court's final order. Text only entry - no attachment. [19-1117] [Entered: 05/23/2019 12:30 PM] |
| [10651009] Dismissed, Default; Procedural termination without judicial action; Clerk of the Court. [19-1117] [Entered: 05/23/2019 12:32 PM] |
| [10650924] Notice of Dismissal filed by Petitioner Mr. Timothy Doyle Young. Served on 05/16/2019. Manner of Service: US mail. [19-1117] [Entered: 05/23/2019 10:27 AM] |
| [10647717] Deficiency notice issued. Type of deficiency: certificate of service not filed and fee not paid or 1915 forms filed. A certificate of service showing service of petition for writ of mandamus be filed and fee or 1915 forms due 05/20/2019 for Timothy Doyle Young. [19-1117] [Entered: 05/10/2019 08:19 AM] |
| [10638265] Order filed by Clerk of the Court directing that a certificate of service showing service of mandamus petition be filed on or before 05/02/2019 for Timothy Doyle Young.. Served on 04/03/2019. Text only entry - no attachment. [19-1117] [Entered: 04/03/2019 10:46 AM] |
| [10637999] Case docketed. Petition mandamus filed. Original. c/s: n. Fee or 1915 forms due 05/02/2019 for Timothy Doyle Young. DATE RECEIVED: 04/01/2019 [19-1117] [Entered: 04/02/2019 01:11 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.
