Benfer v. City of Baytown
| Benjamin Benfer |
| City of Baytown, Texas and Barry Calvert, Individually |
| 23-20543 |
| November 3, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 EXTENSION RECEIVED for Appellant Mr. Benjamin Benfer. Extension Granted to and including 01/25/2024. A/Pet's Brief deadline updated to 01/25/2024 for Appellant Benjamin Benfer [23-20543] (ABT) [Entered: 12/18/2023 07:58 AM] |
| Filing 20 UNOPPOSED LEVEL 1 EXTENSION REQUESTED by Appellant Mr. Benjamin Benfer for filing Appellant's Brief until 01/25/2024 [23-20543] (Randall Lee Kallinen ) [Entered: 12/17/2023 08:55 AM] |
| Filing 19 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney William S. Helfand for Appellee Barry Calvert in 23-20543, Attorney William S. Helfand for Appellee City of Baytown, Texas in 23-20543 [23-20543] (CCR) [Entered: 11/21/2023 03:38 PM] |
| Filing 18 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. William S. Helfand for Mr. Barry Calvert and City of Baytown, Texas for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [23-20543] (William S. Helfand ) [Entered: 11/20/2023 02:16 PM] |
| Filing 16 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Norman Ray Giles for party(s) Appellee City of Baytown, Texas Appellee Barry Calvert, in case 23-20543 [23-20543] (CCR) [Entered: 11/16/2023 02:37 PM] |
| Filing 15 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [23-20543] (Norman Ray Giles ) [Entered: 11/15/2023 02:06 PM] |
| Filing 14 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 12/26/2023 for Appellant Benjamin Benfer. [23-20543] (DDL) [Entered: 11/13/2023 09:57 AM] |
| Filing 13 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. [23-20543] (DDL) [Entered: 11/13/2023 09:56 AM] |
| Filing 11 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Alexander Charles Johnson for party(s) Appellant Benjamin Benfer, in case 23-20543 [23-20543] (CCR) [Entered: 11/08/2023 04:14 PM] |
| Filing 10 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Randall Lee Kallinen for Appellant Benjamin Benfer in 23-20543 [23-20543] (ABT) [Entered: 11/08/2023 12:08 PM] |
| Filing 9 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [23-20543] (Alexander Charles Johnson ) [Entered: 11/08/2023 10:39 AM] |
| Filing 8 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 4:22-CV-2196. Electronic ROA due on 11/22/2023. [23-20543] (ABT) [Entered: 11/07/2023 08:27 AM] |
| Filing 7 TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. Benjamin Benfer advising transcript unnecessary for appeal purposes. Transcript Order ddl satisfied [23-20543] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED - The original text prior to review appeared as follows: TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. Benjamin Benfer advising transcript unnecessary Date of Service: 11/07/2023 via email - Attorney for Appellee: Helfand; Attorney for Appellant: Kallinen [23-20543] (Randall Lee Kallinen ) [Entered: 11/07/2023 07:28 AM] |
| Filing 6 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Randall Lee Kallinen, Esq. for Mr. Benjamin Benfer for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [23-20543] (Randall Lee Kallinen ) [Entered: 11/07/2023 07:21 AM] |
| Filing 5 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [5] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 11/21/2023 for Appellant Benjamin Benfer [23-20543] (ABT) [Entered: 11/06/2023 12:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Benjamin Benfer. [23-20543] (RLL) [Entered: 11/03/2023 07:35 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.
