Ramirez v. Martin
Mucio Ramirez |
Christopher Martin |
22-10011 |
January 5, 2022 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellant's brief filed by Appellant Mr. Mucio Ramirez [ # 9777811-2 ] A/Pet's Brief deadline updated to 03/18/2022 for Appellant Mucio Ramirez [22-10011] (RAJ) [Entered: 02/16/2022 12:37 PM] |
UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Mucio Ramirez to extend time to file brief as appellant until 03/18/2022 [9777811-2]. Date of service: 02/16/2022 via email - Attorney for Appellants: Illich, Roberts; Attorney for Appellee: Levine [22-10011] (Niles Stefan Illich ) [Entered: 02/16/2022 11:43 AM] |
APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Niles Stefan Illich for Appellant Mucio Ramirez in 22-10011 [22-10011] (RAJ) [Entered: 01/10/2022 09:43 AM] |
ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? Yes Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [22-10011] (MRW) [Entered: 01/07/2022 11:42 AM] |
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 02/16/2022 for Appellant Mucio Ramirez. [22-10011] (MRW) [Entered: 01/07/2022 11:43 AM] |
APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Scott Douglas Levine for Appellee Christopher Martin in 22-10011 [22-10011] (RAJ) [Entered: 01/07/2022 10:23 AM] |
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Scott Douglas Levine for Mr. Christopher Martin for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [22-10011] (Scott Douglas Levine ) [Entered: 01/06/2022 03:41 PM] |
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Niles Stefan Illich for Mr. Mucio Ramirez for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [22-10011] (Niles Stefan Illich ) [Entered: 01/06/2022 10:45 AM] |
INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9749172-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 01/21/2022 for Appellant Mucio Ramirez [22-10011] (RAJ) [Entered: 01/06/2022 09:51 AM] |
ATTORNEY TRANSCRIPT ORDER form filed by Appellant Mr. Mucio Ramirezfor the Court to process. Date of service: 01/06/2022 via email - Attorney for Appellants: Illich, Roberts; Attorney for Appellee: Levine. [22-10011] (Niles Stefan Illich ) [Entered: 01/06/2022 11:01 AM] |
TRANSCRIPT ORDER received advising transcript (no hearings) unnecessary for appeal purposes. Transcript Order ddl satisfied [22-10011] (RAJ) [Entered: 01/06/2022 02:58 PM] |
ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:20-CV-1927. Electronic ROA due on 01/21/2022. [22-10011] (RAJ) [Entered: 01/06/2022 02:59 PM] |
CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Mucio Ramirez [22-10011] (LEF) [Entered: 01/05/2022 08:57 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.
Search for this case: Ramirez v. Martin | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff / appellant: Mucio Ramirez | |
Represented By: | Niles Stefan Illich |
Represented By: | James Painter Roberts |
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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant / appellee: Christopher Martin | |
Represented By: | Scott Douglas Levine |
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 | [ Unicourt | 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.