Dixon v. Lumpkin
| Richard Raymond Dixon |
| Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division |
| 21-40395 |
| May 19, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Richard Raymond Dixon for certificate of appealability [9608908-2]. Motion due deadline satisfied. [21-40395] (JMW) [Entered: 06/30/2021 11:02 AM] |
| BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Appellant Mr. Richard Raymond Dixon in support of Motion for certificate of appealability [ # 9608908-2 ] (INCORPORATED IN MOTION FOR COA) Brief in Support deadline satisfied. [9608910-1] [21-40395] (JMW) [Entered: 06/30/2021 11:03 AM] |
| MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Richard Raymond Dixon to proceed in forma pauperis [9592480-2] Fee deadline canceled. Date of service: 05/28/2021 [21-40395] (DLM) [Entered: 06/09/2021 10:12 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No State Court Papers included? Yes. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [21-40395] (MRW) [Entered: 05/27/2021 11:21 AM] |
| DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 05/20/2021 denying IFP for Appellant Mr. Richard Raymond Dixon. [21-40395] (DLM) [Entered: 05/26/2021 04:02 PM] |
| LETTER ISSUED. Motion for COA and brief in support are required. Motion due on 07/06/2021 for Appellant Richard Raymond Dixon. Brief in Support due on 07/06/2021 for Appellant Richard Raymond Dixon. Fee deadline updated to 07/06/2021 for Appellant Richard Raymond Dixon [21-40395] (DLM) [Entered: 05/26/2021 04:03 PM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 4:20-CV-814. Electronic ROA due on 06/10/2021. [21-40395] (DLM) [Entered: 05/26/2021 04:14 PM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken on the Application for COA signed by Crystal Dixon, and Notice of Appeal and Motion for IFP filed in the district court signed by Richard Dixon received from Appellant Mr. Richard Raymond Dixon because we cannot accept filings from Ms. Dixon on appellant's behalf (advised in BR 7 ntc.) [21-40395] (DLM) [Entered: 05/26/2021 04:19 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [9580296-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. (IFPPDC) [21-40395] (RLL) [Entered: 05/21/2021 04:43 PM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Richard Raymond Dixon [21-40395] (RLL) [Entered: 05/19/2021 11:29 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Dixon v. Lumpkin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: Richard Raymond Dixon | |
| Represented By: | Richard Raymond Dixon |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division | |
| Represented By: | Lori Denise Brodbeck |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
