ONeill v. New York State
| New York State, Public Defender XYZ, in their individual capacities, City of Buffalo, Legal Aid Bureau Inc., employees X,Y,Z, New York State Office of Mental Health, employees X,Y,Z in their individual capacities, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, in his individual capacity, XYZ Manager, Office Marine Drive Apartments, in their individual capacities, Sheriff Timothy B. Howard, in his individual and official capacity, Psychiatrist XYZ Buffalo Psychiatric Center, in their individual capacities, Psychologist XYZ Buffalo Psychiatric Center, in their individual capacities, Erie County Sheriff Office's Forensic Mental Health Division, employees X,Y,Z in their individual and official capacities, Zucker, in his individual capacity, Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Office of Mental Health, Western New York Field Office, David Rodriguez, in their individual capacities, Buffalo Psychiatric Center, employees X,Y,Z in their individual and official capacities, Erie County New York, employees X,Y,Z in their indivdual and official capacities, Commissioner Sullivan, in her individual capacity, Psychologist XYZ, Holding Center in their individual capacities, Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., New York State Department of Health, employees X,Y,Z in their individual capacities, Byron Brown, Mayor in their individual capacities, Erie County Sheriff Office, employees X,Y,Z in their individual and official capacities, Deputies XYZ, Erie County Holding Center, Mark C. Poloncarz, County Executive in his individual and official capacity, Department of Health, Howard A. Zucker/Employees X,Y,Z, Commissioner of Mental Health, Ann Sullivan/Employees X,Y,Z, Marine Drive Apartments, employees X,Y,Z in their individual and official capacities and Buffalo Police Department, employees X,Y,Z in their individual and official capacities |
| Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill |
| William Macy, Buffalo Police Officer in his official capacity, Police Officer XYZ, Buffalo Polce and Buffalo Police Officer Ross, in his individual and official capacity |
| 20-3542 |
| October 13, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 31 ATTORNEY, Timothy Alfred Ball and Maeve Eileen Huggins, for Police Officer XYZ and Ross, TERMINATED.[2984724] [20-3542] [Entered: 12/02/2020 10:57 AM] |
| Filing 30 LETTER, on behalf of Appellees Buffalo Police Officer Ross and Police Officer XYZ, informing the Court that Attorney Maeve will not be representing both parties on appeal and both parties should be removed from this appeal, RECEIVED. Service date 11/25/2020 by US mail.[2982073] [20-3542]--[Edited 12/02/2020 by VB]--[Edited 12/02/2020 by VB] [Entered: 11/25/2020 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 28 ATTORNEY, Maeve Eileen Huggins, [ # 12 ], in place of attorney Timothy Alfred Bell, SUBSTITUTED.[2980982] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/24/2020 01:05 PM] |
| Filing 27 LR 31.2 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, informing Court of proposed due date 02/03/2021, RECEIVED. Service date 11/13/2020 by US mail.[2976928] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/18/2020 09:53 AM] |
| Filing 26 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORM, on behalf of Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, FILED. Service date 11/13/2020 by US mail.[2976925] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/18/2020 09:50 AM] |
| Filing 24 PAPERS, docketing statement, RECEIVED.[2969893] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/06/2020 03:54 PM] |
| Filing 23 FORM D-P, on behalf of Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, FILED. Service date 10/30/2020 by US mail.[2969891] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/06/2020 03:54 PM] |
| Filing 22 LETTER, dated 10/30/2020, on behalf of Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, requesting a change of address, already entered on 11/02/2020, RECEIVED. Service date 10/30/2020 by US mail.[2969885] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/06/2020 03:49 PM] |
| Filing 19 ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST, dated 11/04/2020, as per the envelope filed on 10/22/2020, COMPLETED.[2967275] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/04/2020 09:47 AM] |
Filing 18
ORDER, dated 11/02/2020, dismissing appeal by 11/23/2020, unless Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, submits Acknowledgment and Notice of Appearance, copy to pro se appellant, FILED.[2965929] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/02/2020 04:10 PM]
|
| Filing 21 PAPERS, transcript order, RECEIVED.[2969879] [20-3542] [Entered: 11/06/2020 03:47 PM] |
|
Filing 17
ORDER, dated 10/27/2020, dismissing appeal by 11/17/2020, unless Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, submits Form D-P, copy to pro se appellant, FILED.[2961226] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/27/2020 01:00 PM]
|
| Filing 14 PAPERS, exhibits 1-21, RECEIVED.[2960103] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/26/2020 01:07 PM] |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee William Macy, FILED. Service date 10/22/2020 by US mail. [2958247] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/22/2020 01:08 PM] |
| Filing 10 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, district court receipt # BUF069914, FILED.[2956364] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/20/2020 03:31 PM] |
| Filing 7 INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro Se Appellant, SENT.[2953955] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:54 AM] |
| Filing 4 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[2953903] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:17 AM] |
| Filing 3 DISTRICT COURT AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER, dated 09/28/2020, RECEIVED.[2953900] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:15 AM] |
| Filing 2 DISTRICT COURT DECISION AND ORDER, dated 09/28/2020, RECEIVED.[2953895] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:14 AM] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF PRISONER APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Jaime A. Diaz O'Neill, FILED. [2953888] [20-3542] [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:12 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.
