Smith v. United States, et al
| NATHAN SMITH |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MICHAEL CARVAGAL, JAMES DEVERE, H. A. RIOS, TAMYRA JARVIS, (FNU) RIVAS and B. PALOSKEY |
| 22-3016 |
| February 10, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| [10902361] Appellant's motion filed by Nathan Smith for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees. Served on 03/22/2022. Manner of Service: US mail. [22-3016] [Entered: 03/29/2022 10:10 AM] |
| [10902418] Order filed by Clerk of the Court assessing costs and fees in the amount of $505. Served on 03/29/2022. [22-3016] [Entered: 03/29/2022 11:32 AM] |
| [10900072] Record on appeal filed. No. of Volumes: 1. Volume I - Pleadings. [22-3016] [Entered: 03/18/2022 08:38 AM] |
| [10899750] Jurisdictional review complete. Fee or 1915 forms and opening brief due on 04/26/2022 for Nathan Smith. Record on appeal 10th circuit due 04/07/2022. [22-3016] [Entered: 03/17/2022 09:03 AM] |
| [10898655] Entry of appearance filed by Nathan Smith. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: y (the parties listed are appeal parties). [22-3016] [Entered: 03/14/2022 11:56 AM] |
| [10899175] miscellaneous correspondence received from Nathan Smith but not filed. Original. (Response letter sent.) [22-3016] [Entered: 03/15/2022 12:27 PM] |
| [10892285] Prisoner case docketed. DATE RECEIVED: 02/10/2022. Fee or 1915 forms due in district court 03/14/2022 for Nathan Smith. Notice of appearance due on 03/14/2022 for Nathan Smith. [22-3016] [Entered: 02/10/2022 02:01 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.
