David Diehl v. Jake Bailey, et al
| SEAN M. MULLEN, FBI Special Agent, JAKE BAILEY, FBI Special Agent and SCOTT JENSEN, FBI Special Agent |
| DAVID A. DIEHL |
| 21-11802 |
| May 26, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MOTION for IFP per FRAP 24(a) CONSTRUED AS a motion for leave to proceed filed by Appellant David A. Diehl. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [9419170-1] [Entered: 06/24/2021 10:23 AM] |
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant David A. Diehl. [Entered: 06/24/2021 10:28 AM] |
| **ENTERED IN ERROR**Notice of receipt: Motion for IFP per FRAP 24(a). as to Appellant David A. Diehl. NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN because you must submit a consent form.--[Edited 06/24/2021 by AGW] [Entered: 06/24/2021 10:17 AM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to David A. Diehl. 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: 06/15/2021 10:57 AM] |
| USDC Order Denying appellant Leave to Proceed with Fees Assessed. Filed on 05/27/2021. Docket Entry 10. [Entered: 05/27/2021 04:20 PM] |
| PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant David A. Diehl on 05/24/2021. Fee Status: IFP Pending. [Entered: 05/27/2021 04:16 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.
