Mike Redford v. Supreme Court of Georgia, et al
| MIKE REDFORD |
| STEPHEN E CASTLERS, SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA, TIA C HULTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA, THERESE S. BARNES and GEORGIA COURT OF APPEALS |
| 20-10152 |
| January 8, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MOTION to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mike Redford. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [9014352-1] [Entered: 02/20/2020 02:58 PM] |
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Mike Redford. [Entered: 02/10/2020 04:22 PM] |
| USDC order denying COA and denying IFP as to Appellant Mike Redford was filed on 02/05/2020. Docket Entry 19. [Entered: 02/06/2020 09:52 AM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Mike Redford. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 01/28/2020 11:43 AM] |
| MOTION to consolidate appeals 20-10037, 20-10041 and 20-10152 filed by Appellant Mike Redford. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [8999608-1] [Entered: 02/04/2020 10:02 AM] |
| HABEAS APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Mike Redford on 01/07/2020. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. No hearings to be transcribed. [Entered: 01/14/2020 10:45 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.
