Harris v. Watson
| Reginald Harris |
| FNU Watson, Hillsboro Police Officer, Vernon Busby, Hill County Sheriff Deputy and Officer Rogers |
| 22-50579 |
| July 5, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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. [22-50579] (MBC) [Entered: 08/23/2022 11:20 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 6:21-CV-1216. Electronic ROA due on 09/06/2022. [22-50579] (MRW) [Entered: 08/19/2022 03:38 PM] |
| BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief due on 09/28/2022 for Appellant Reginald Harris. [22-50579] (MRW) [Entered: 08/19/2022 03:32 PM] |
| DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 08/18/2022 granting IFP in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) for Appellant Mr. Reginald Harris. Initial partial filing fee assessed.Fee deadline satisfied [22-50579] (MRW) [Entered: 08/19/2022 03:28 PM] |
| MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Harris to appoint counsel [9904564-2]. [22-50579] (MRW) [Entered: 08/01/2022 10:30 AM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9889583-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Fee or motion for IFP in DC due on 09/06/2022 for Appellant Reginald Harris [22-50579] (LEF) [Entered: 07/11/2022 01:33 PM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Reginald Harris [22-50579] (RSM) [Entered: 07/05/2022 09:00 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.
