Brett Bogus v. Harris County District Atty, et al
| HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, JOHN MENNA, GLADYS SHIRLEY FITZGERALD, CITY OF HUMBLE and TONY TAYLOR |
| BRETT DAVID BOGUS |
| 19-20840 |
| December 10, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Brett Bogus v. Harris County District Atty, et al |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion for Relief from DC's Order pursuant to FRCP 60, received from Appellant Mr. Brett David Bogus because these rules do not apply in this court. However, if the document contains argument that supports the merits of the appeal he can ask that it be filed as a brief on the merits once the briefing notice has issued [19-20840] (DLM) [Entered: 12/27/2019 03:31 PM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken on the Motion to Serve Defendants referring to FRCP Rule 4(c)(3) received from Appellant Mr. Brett David Bogus because these rules do not apply in this court. [19-20840] (DLM) [Entered: 12/20/2019 03:43 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [9212104-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. Fee or motion for IFP in DC due on 02/10/2020 for Appellant Brett David Bogus [19-20840] (CAG) [Entered: 12/17/2019 11:09 AM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Brett David Bogus [19-20840] (AS) [Entered: 12/10/2019 08:53 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.
