Marcos Lopez-Beltran v. Attorney General United States
MARCOS LOPEZ-BELTRAN |
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
20-2472 |
July 15, 2020 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 CLERK ORDER The petitions for review are consolidated for all purposes. The briefing schedule issued in No. 20-1420 is hereby vacated. As the administrative record filed in Nos. 20-1420 does not contain the proceedings that are the subject of No. 20-2472, Respondent is hereby ordered to file a supplemental record for No. 20-2472 within 21 days of the date of this order. Upon the filing of the supplemental administrative record and all case opening forms in No. 20-2472, the Clerk is directed to issue a new briefing schedule in this consolidated action. It is noted that the Court granted as unopposed Petitioners motion for stay of removal in No. 20-1420, filed. [20-2472, 20-1420]--[Edited 07/17/2020 by PDB] (PDB) [Entered: 07/16/2020 10:40 AM] |
Filing 3 ORDER (Clerk) granting motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Marcos Lopez-Beltran. The court may reconsider in forma pauperis status or request additional information at any time during the course of these proceedings, filed. (PDB) [Entered: 07/16/2020 10:08 AM] |
Filing 2 MOTION filed by Petitioner Marcos Lopez-Beltran to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (PDB) [Entered: 07/16/2020 10:03 AM] |
Filing 1 AGENCY CASE DOCKETED. Petition filed by Marcos Lopez-Beltran. Certificate of Service dated 07/16/2020. Service made by ECF. (PDB) [Entered: 07/16/2020 09:57 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.