In re: Mark Stinson
| In re: MARK T. STINSON |
| KEVIN G. RITZ, WILLIAM BATEMAN, III, MARY H. MORRIS, JOHN T FOWLKES, DANNY J. BOGGS, ALICE M. BATCHELDER, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, DORIS RANDLE-HOLT, DAVID M BELL, UNKNOWN UNITED STATES MARSHALL OFFICERS, WITNEY BAILEY, KAYLA JONES, ANTHONY ALEXANDER, EDWIN G. TORRES, YVONNE RODRIGUEZ-SCHACK, MARC CHATTAH, MAEANN DUNKER, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 26-10089 |
| January 12, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 7, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this petition is hereby DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the Petitioner Mark T. Stinson failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the clerk of this court within the time fixed by the rules [Entered: 04/07/2026 10:22 AM]
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER: Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson is DENIED. [ # 6 ], Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson is DENIED. [ # 3 ] RJL (See attached order for complete text) [Entered: 03/19/2026 06:04 PM]
|
| Filing 10 No action will be taken on the petition for a writ of mandamus filed in this appeal. The petition for a writ of mandamus is an original proceeding and must be opened as a new case number. See FRAP 21. Your petition for a writ of mandamus will be opened as new case, and you will receive notice of the new case number. [Entered: 01/20/2026 11:08 AM] |
| Filing 9 EMERGENCY MOTION to expedite, to expedite ruling on a motion, to remand this appeal on a limited basis. filed by Mark T. Stinson. Motion is Unopposed. [9] [26-10089] (ECF: Mark Stinson) [Entered: 01/20/2026 09:26 AM] |
| Filing 8 Notice that no action will be taken on Motion to expedite [ # 5 ], Motion to remand in full [ # 5 ], Motion to expedite ruling on a motion [ # 5 ] filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson. Reason(s) no action being taken on filing(s): Incorrect Event used to file a document. [Entered: 01/15/2026 02:34 PM] |
| Filing 7 Notice of deficient Motion filed by Mark T. Stinson. Incorrect Event used to file a document [Entered: 01/15/2026 02:33 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION to proceed IFP filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson. Motion is Unopposed [6] [26-10089] (ECF: Mark Stinson) [Entered: 01/13/2026 03:35 PM] |
| Filing 5 EMERGENCY MOTION to expedite, to REMAND this appeal in full to the District Court, to expedite ruling on a motion filed by Mark T. Stinson. Motion is Unopposed. [5] [26-10089] (ECF: Mark Stinson) [Entered: 01/13/2026 03:25 PM] |
| Filing 4 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Party Mark T. Stinson. 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). [26-10089] (ECF: Mark Stinson) [Entered: 01/13/2026 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION to proceed IFP filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [3] [26-10089] (ECF: Mark Stinson) [Entered: 01/13/2026 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 2 Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson. [Entered: 01/13/2026 10:39 AM] |
| Filing 1 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING DOCKETED. Petition for WRIT of MANDAMUS filed by Petitioner Mark T. Stinson. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. See attached docketing notice for important information, including deadlines. [Entered: 01/13/2026 10:28 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.
