Hernandez v. El Pasoans Fighting
| Alejandro Hernandez |
| El Pasoans Fighting Hunger, Jose "Abe" Gonzalez and Susan E. Goodall |
| 22-50240 |
| April 1, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 16, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER granting in part Motion to extend time to file appellant's brief filed by Appellant Mr. Alejandro Hernandez [ # 9847744-2 ] A/Pet's Brief deadline updated to 06/15/2022 for Appellant Alejandro Hernandez [22-50240] (CBW) [Entered: 05/16/2022 02:03 PM] |
| OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Alejandro Hernandez to extend time to file brief as appellant until 06/27/2022 [9847744-2]. Date of service: 05/13/2022 [22-50240] (CBW) [Entered: 05/16/2022 12:23 PM] |
| BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 05/16/2022 for Appellant Alejandro Hernandez. [22-50240] (MAS) [Entered: 04/06/2022 04:21 PM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [22-50240] (MAS) [Entered: 04/06/2022 04:19 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9816428-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [22-50240] (CB) [Entered: 04/06/2022 07:47 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:21-CV-55. Electronic ROA due on 04/21/2022. [22-50240] (CB) [Entered: 04/06/2022 07:52 AM] |
| CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Alejandro Hernandez [22-50240] (CBW) [Entered: 04/01/2022 03:44 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.
