Cordney Hayes v. Edwin Sabillon, et al
| CORDNEY MALLORY HAYES |
| EDWIN SABILLON, Sergeant, Monroe County Detention Center and SAMUEL CARPENTAR, Deputy, Monroe County Detention Center |
| 24-10905 |
| March 25, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 17, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Appellant Cordney Mallory Hayes 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 failed to comply with the rules on Certificates of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements within the time fixed by the rules [Entered: 04/17/2024 03:24 PM]
|
| Filing 4 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION form filed by Party Cordney Mallory Hayes. No hearings. [Entered: 04/12/2024 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 3 Notice that no action will be taken on Certificate of Interested Persons filed by Appellant Cordney Mallory Hayes. Reason(s) no action being taken on filing(s): The filing was forwarded from another court. See FRAP 25(a)(1).. [Entered: 04/11/2024 08:24 AM] |
| Filing 2 Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Cordney Mallory Hayes. [Entered: 04/11/2024 08:23 AM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Cordney Mallory Hayes on 03/22/2024. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid.. [Entered: 03/26/2024 12:46 PM] |
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.
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.
