Christopher Surles v. Warden, et al
| CHRISTOPHER SURLES |
| WARDEN and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA |
| 22-11108 |
| April 6, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER: On its own motion, the court DISMISSES the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. RSR, BCG and RJL (See attached order for complete text) [Entered: 05/25/2022 10:58 AM]
|
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by David Hunter Hamm for Respondents. On the same day the CIP is served, any filer represented by counsel must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b). [22-11108] (ECF: David Hamm) [Entered: 05/12/2022 01:43 PM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by D. Hunter Hamm for Respondents Steven Marshall for Attorney General of the State of Alabama and Warden. [22-11108] (ECF: David Hamm) [Entered: 05/05/2022 04:37 PM] |
| Notice of Change of Address for Party Christopher Surles. [Entered: 04/29/2022 03:58 PM] |
| USDC order denying COA as to Appellant Christopher Surles was filed on 02/17/2022. Docket Entry 14. [Entered: 04/14/2022 12:05 PM] |
| USDC order denying IFP as to Appellant Christopher Surles was filed on 04/12/2022. Docket Entry 19. [Entered: 04/14/2022 12:06 PM] |
| HABEAS APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Christopher Surles on 04/01/2022. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. No hearings to be transcribed. [Entered: 04/14/2022 12:02 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.
