In re: Steven Aitken
| In re: STEVEN MICHAEL AITKEN |
| SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HOLMES CI WARDEN, CALLOWAY, C. DOSTER, J. LAND, JEREMY EDWARDS, KNIGHT, B. PADGHAM, SABRINA HOOVER, J. JONES and WILSON |
| 25-11015 |
| March 28, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 14, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 MOTION MOOT: Motion for writ of mandamus is MOOT [ # 1 ] due to clerk's order filed 05/14/2025. Motion filed by Petitioner Steven Michael Aitken. [Entered: 05/14/2025 09:43 AM] |
Filing 3
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Petitioner Steven Michael Aitken failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court, or file a consent form and failed to comply with the rules on Certificates of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements within the time fixed by the rules. [Entered: 05/14/2025 09:32 AM]
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP) DEFICIENCY issued to Steven Michael Aitken. 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 remedy the default(s). [Entered: 05/06/2025 04:58 PM] |
| Filing 1 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING DOCKETED. Petition for WRIT of MANDAMUS filed by Petitioner Steven Michael Aitken. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid [Entered: 04/01/2025 11:51 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.
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.
