Shamel Jones v. John Wetzel, et al
| SHAMEL JONES |
| SUPERINTENDENT JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, GEORGE LITTLE, EMPLOYEES OF THE DOC, STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AT SCI PHOENIX, MAIL ROOM SUPERVISOR MS KELLY LONG, FEDEX and SHIPPING AND GROUND MAIL SERVICES CARRIERS |
| 23-2229 |
| July 7, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 CLERK ORDER On July 3, 2023, Mr. Jones filed a document which was captioned in the District Court action at Civ. No. 22-cv-01190. This document was docketed as a notice of appeal in that action and transmitted to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals opened the new appeal at C.A. No. 23-2229. Upon further review of this document, however, it appears that it is a letter advising the Clerk of the District Court that he inadvertently sent documents concerning some unrelated case and requesting a copy of some recent order in his District Court action at Civ. No. 22-cv-01190. As such, it appears that the appeal at C.A. No. 23-2229 was opened in error. It is hereby ORDERED that the appeal at C.A. 23-2229 is administratively closed and the document of July 3, 2023, shall be referred to the District Court for further action. (TMM) [Entered: 07/20/2023 12:00 PM] |
| Filing 2 RECORD available on District Court CM/ECF. (TMM) [Entered: 07/07/2023 04:42 PM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL CASE DOCKETED. Notice filed by Appellant Shamel Jones in District Court No. 2-22-cv-01190. (TMM) [Entered: 07/07/2023 04:38 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.
