Raheem Jacobs v. Cumberland County, et al
| WARDEN ROBERT BALICKI, EMANUAL MORRERO, NEIL ARMSTRONG, MICHAEL ANDERSON, MANUAL VELESQUEZ and COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND NEW JERSEY |
| MICHAEL WILLIAMS |
| RAHEEM JACOBS |
| 19-3269 |
| October 10, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| ECF FILER: RESPONSE on behalf of Appellee Raheem Jacobs to clerk order. Certificate of Service dated 10/24/2019 by ECF. [19-3269]--[Edited 10/25/2019 by PDB] (SKA) [Entered: 10/24/2019 04:40 PM] |
| ECF FILER: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT on behalf of Appellant(s) Michael Williams. [19-3269]--[Edited 10/23/2019 by TMM] (AMB) [Entered: 10/23/2019 09:35 AM] |
| ECF FILER: CONCISE SUMMARY OF THE CASE on behalf of Appellant(s) Michael Williams. [19-3269]--[Edited 10/23/2019 by TMM] (AMB) [Entered: 10/23/2019 09:36 AM] |
| ECF FILER: Response filed by Appellant Michael Williams to clerk order. Certificate of Service dated 10/23/2019. [19-3269] (AMB) [Entered: 10/23/2019 10:48 AM] |
| ECF FILER: CIVIL APPEAL INFORMATION STATEMENT on behalf of Appellant(s) Michael Williams. [19-3269]--[Edited 10/23/2019 by TMM] (AMB) [Entered: 10/23/2019 09:33 AM] |
| ECF FILER: TRANSCRIPT PURCHASE ORDER on behalf of Appellant(s) Michael Williams. [19-3269]--[Edited 10/23/2019 by TMM] (AMB) [Entered: 10/23/2019 09:38 AM] |
| ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from A. Michael Barker, Esquire on behalf of Appellant(s) Michael Williams. [19-3269] (AMB) [Entered: 10/23/2019 09:30 AM] |
| ECF FILER: DISCLOSURE STATEMENT on behalf of Appellee Raheem Jacobs, filed. [19-3269] (SKA) [Entered: 10/22/2019 10:10 AM] |
| ECF FILER: ENTRY OF APPEARANCE from Surinder K. Aggarwal on behalf of Appellee(s) Raheem Jacobs. [19-3269] (SKA) [Entered: 10/22/2019 10:08 AM] |
| RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (TMM) [Entered: 10/10/2019 11:04 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER Appellant seeks review of the District Court order and opinion entered June 4, 2019, denying his request for qualified immunity and the District Court order entered September 18, 2019, denying reconsideration of his request for qualified immunity. The orders on appeal may not be final within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and may not otherwise be appealable at this time. Compare Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) with Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-320 (1995), and Monteiro v, City of Elizabeth, 436 F. 3d 397, 405 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Barton v. Curtis, 497 F. 3d 331, 335-36 (3d Cir. 2007); Doe v. Groody, 361 F. 3d 232, 237-38 (3d Cir. 2004). All parties must file written responses addressing this issue, with a certificate of service attached, within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order, filed. (TMM) [Entered: 10/10/2019 11:16 AM] |
| CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Michael Williams in District Court No. 1-16-cv-01523. (TMM) [Entered: 10/10/2019 11:00 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.
