Christopher Smith v. Alabama Department of Corrections, et al
| CHRISTOPHER SMITH |
| ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RANDALL SANDLIN, M. C. DAWKINS and INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS |
| 23-13793 |
| November 17, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Appellant Christopher Smith 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 and file a Transcript Information Form within the time fixed by the rules [Entered: 12/13/2023 03:04 PM]
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP) DEFICIENCY issued to Christopher Smith. You have failed to file the standalone CIP. If you are an appellant or petitioner, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-5(c) and 42-1(b), this appeal will be dismissed without further notice upon the expiration of 14 days from the date of this notice unless you both remedy the default(s) AND file a motion to remedy the default(s). [Entered: 12/07/2023 09:38 AM] |
| Filing 2 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Andrew C. Crowder for M. C. Dawkins and Randall Sandlin. Related cases? No. [23-13793] (ECF: Andrew Crowder) [Entered: 12/05/2023 10:16 AM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Christopher Smith on 11/16/2023. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. [Entered: 11/21/2023 09:16 AM] |
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.
