Garcia v. Montford Unit
| Oscar Norman Garcia |
| Montford Unit, David Reed, Assistant Warden, J. Back, Grievance Investigator and Chantal A. Flores, Corp IV |
| 23-10278 |
| March 20, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 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. [23-10278] (DDL) [Entered: 05/11/2023 11:09 AM] |
| Filing 8 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 5:22-CV-229. Electronic ROA due on 05/22/2023. [23-10278] (MBC) [Entered: 05/05/2023 01:02 PM] |
| Filing 7 DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 04/19/2023 denying IFP for Appellant Mr. Oscar Norman Garcia because appeal is not taken in good faith - fee assessed - BAUGH case.Fee due on 06/05/2023 for Appellant Oscar Norman Garcia. [23-10278] (MBC) [Entered: 05/05/2023 12:57 PM] |
| Filing 6 DISTRICT COURT NOTICE - IFP pending for Appellant Mr. Oscar Norman Garcia. Fee deadline satisfied. [23-10278] (MRW) [Entered: 04/19/2023 10:40 AM] |
| Filing 5 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Review after Fee Issue is Resolved (PLRA case). [5] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Fee or motion for IFP in DC due on 05/16/2023 for Appellant Oscar Norman Garcia [23-10278] (RSM) [Entered: 03/22/2023 01:17 PM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Oscar Norman Garcia [23-10278] (CAS) [Entered: 03/20/2023 04:59 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.
