Brooks v. Hernandez
| Sherman D. Brooks |
| Sally Hernandez, Sheriff, A. Wilson, Detention Officer, A. Mansaray, Sergeant, B. James, Sergeant, FNU Banasco, Major, FNU Wilbanks, Lieutenant, FNU Griffin, Detention Officer and FNU Nglife, Sergeant |
| 23-50113 |
| February 13, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 42.3.1, the appeal is subject to dismissal in 15 days for failure to comply with the initial written deadline. Fee deadline updated to 04/20/2023 for Appellant Sherman D. Brooks [23-50113] (MVM) [Entered: 04/13/2023 09:52 AM] |
| Filing 8 DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 03/06/2023 denying IFP for Appellant Mr. Sherman D. Brooks because appeal is not taken in good faith - fee assessed - BAUGH case.Fee due on 04/05/2023 for Appellant Sherman D. Brooks [23-50113] (MVM) [Entered: 03/16/2023 08:05 AM] |
| Filing 6 DISTRICT COURT NOTICE - IFP pending for Appellant Mr. Sherman D. Brooks. Fee deadline satisfied. [23-50113] (MRW) [Entered: 02/28/2023 03:24 PM] |
| 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 04/10/2023 for Appellant Sherman D. Brooks [23-50113] (MVM) [Entered: 02/14/2023 02:10 PM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Sherman D. Brooks [23-50113] (RAJ) [Entered: 02/13/2023 05:44 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.
