Prophet Paulcin v. M Key
| PROPHET PAULCIN |
| M KEY, ARNP |
| 23-10598 |
| February 24, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Appellant Prophet Paulcin failed to pay the filing and docketing fees (or file a motion in the district court for relief from the obligation to pay in advance the full fee) to the district court within the time fixed by the rules [Entered: 03/28/2023 05:10 PM]
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Prophet Paulcin. 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: 03/16/2023 11:11 AM] |
| Filing 6 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Jacob Hanson for Appellee M Key. 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). [23-10598] (ECF: Jacob Hanson) [Entered: 03/14/2023 01:34 PM] |
| Filing 5 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Michael Bentley for Appellee, M. Key, A.R.N.P. [23-10598] (ECF: Michael Bentley) [Entered: 03/14/2023 12:13 PM] |
| Filing 4 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by William Blair Castle for M Key. [23-10598] (ECF: William Castle) [Entered: 03/14/2023 12:11 PM] |
| Filing 3 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Brian A. Wahl for M Key. [23-10598] (ECF: Brian Wahl) [Entered: 03/14/2023 12:10 PM] |
| Filing 2 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Jacob Hanson for M Key. [23-10598] (ECF: Jacob Hanson) [Entered: 03/14/2023 12:07 PM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Prophet Paulcin on 11/15/2022. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid.. [Entered: 03/01/2023 09:51 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.
| Search for this case: Prophet Paulcin v. M Key | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: PROPHET PAULCIN | |
| Represented By: | Prophet Paulcin |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: M KEY, ARNP | |
| Represented By: | William Blair Castle |
| Represented By: | Jacob Hanson |
| Represented By: | Kayla Platt Rady |
| Represented By: | Brian A. Wahl |
| Represented By: | Michael James Bentley |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
