Robert Dixon v. Superintendent Huntingdon SCI, et al
| SUPERINTENDENT HUNTINGDON SCI and ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA |
| ROBERT DIXON |
| 19-1937 |
| April 26, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER (Clerk) granting letter motion fo an extension of time to file response to clerk's order advising of possible dismissal due to jurisdictional defect. Response must be filed within thirty day sof the day of this order, filed. (SB) [Entered: 06/11/2019 09:27 AM]
|
| Document Construed as MOTION for Extention of Time to file JD Response by Appellant Robert Dixon. Response due on 06/03/2019. Certificate of Service dated 05/20/2019. Service made by US mail. (SB) [Entered: 05/31/2019 02:25 PM] |
| STATE COURT RECORD Returned. 1 box. (KEL) [Entered: 05/22/2019 12:40 PM] |
| STATE COURT RECORD received. 1 box. (KEL) [Entered: 05/21/2019 11:27 AM] |
| FOLLOW UP LETTER to Ronald Eisenberg, Esq. for Attorney General Pennsylvania requesting the following document(s): Appearance Form on or before 05/30/2019. (SB) [Entered: 05/16/2019 04:11 PM] |
| LEGAL DIVISION LETTER SENT advising that the case has been listed for possible dismissal due to jurisdictional defect AND for a decision on the issuance of certificate of appealability. (MW) [Entered: 04/29/2019 11:40 AM] |
| RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (SB) [Entered: 04/26/2019 01:57 PM] |
| CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Robert Dixon in District Court No. 1-17-cv-00072. (SB) [Entered: 04/26/2019 01:53 PM] |
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.
