Spotts v. Avalos, et al
ROOT, RECREATION SUPERVISOR, MATEVOUSIAN, Complex Warden, JOHN A.W. DOE, ROUSEY, GRISETTE, RELIGION SUPERVISOR, LAUNDRY SUPERVISOR, COMPLEX USP ATTORNEY, COMPLEX ATTORNEY, MCKENZIE, HOZENPHEL, JOHN/JANE DOE, Director, North Central Regional Office, AVALOS, STENCIL, Warden, JANE DOE, A.W., PSYCHOLOGY SUPERVISOR and JOHN/JANE DOE, Administrative Remedy Coordinator |
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS |
19-1366 |
September 25, 2019 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on November 1, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
[10691487] Mandate issued. [19-1366] [Entered: 11/01/2019 08:46 AM] |
[10691486] Default; Procedural termination without judicial action; Clerk of the Court. [19-1366] [Entered: 11/01/2019 08:45 AM] |
[10683617] Order filed by Clerk of the Court. This matter is before the court following the opening of this appeal to determine whether appellant Kelvin Andre Spotts must prepay the appellate filing fee before this appeal may proceed. Within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall show cause in writing why (1) the court should not dismiss this appeal for failure to prepay the filing fee or (2) the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act do not apply. Response due on 10/22/2019 for Kelvin Andre Spotts. Served on 10/01/2019. [19-1366] See order for detailed information. [Entered: 10/01/2019 04:24 PM] |
[10681279] Prisoner case docketed. DATE RECEIVED: 09/25/2019. Notice of appearance due on 10/25/2019 for Kelvin Andre Spotts. Fee or ifp forms due 10/25/2019 for Kelvin Andre Spotts. [19-1366] [Entered: 09/25/2019 10:20 AM] |
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.