Scott Selger v. Monroe County Detention Center, et al
| SCOTT SELGER |
| MONROE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MADELINE, ERIN and NADAL |
| 22-13231 |
| September 27, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| USDC Order Denying appellant Leave to Proceed with Fees NOT Assessed. Filed on 10/19/2022. Docket Entry 16. [Entered: 10/20/2022 03:53 PM] |
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Scott Selger. [Entered: 10/20/2022 03:38 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Scott Selger. 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. If you are an appellant or petitioner, upon expiration of 14 days from the date of this notice, your appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution if the default has not been remedied, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-5(c) and 42-1(b). If you are an appellee or respondent, no action will be taken on documents submitted until the CIP deficiency is remedied. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-5. [Entered: 10/14/2022 02:40 PM] |
| PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Scott Selger on 09/23/2022. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. [Entered: 09/29/2022 01:05 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.
