White v. Vannoy
| Roderick White |
| Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary |
| 25-30596 |
| October 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus (Prisoner Petition) |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 17, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 CLERK ORDER dismissing appeal pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 42 for failure to comply with Certificate of Appealability requirements [18] [25-30596] (CMC) [Entered: 04/17/2026 09:45 AM] |
| Filing 17 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. Motion due deadline updated to 04/07/2026, for Appellant Roderick White. Brief in Support deadline updated to 04/07/2026, for Appellant Roderick White. [25-30596] (DLJ) [Entered: 03/30/2026 04:11 PM] |
| Filing 16 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No State Court Papers included? Yes. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [25-30596] (DDL) [Entered: 02/26/2026 07:24 AM] |
| Filing 15 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:22-CV-385. Electronic ROA due on 02/26/2026. [25-30596] (CMC) [Entered: 02/11/2026 02:03 PM] |
| Filing 14 LETTER ISSUED. Motion for COA and brief in support are required. Motion due on 03/23/2026 for Appellant Roderick White. Brief in Support due on 03/23/2026 for Appellant Roderick White [25-30596] (CMC) [Entered: 02/11/2026 01:56 PM] |
| Filing 13 FEE PAID by Appellant Mr. Roderick White. Fee deadline satisfied [25-30596] (CMC) [Entered: 02/11/2026 01:55 PM] |
| Filing 11 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 02/24/2026 for Appellant Roderick White [25-30596] (CMC) [Entered: 02/11/2026 11:45 AM] |
| Filing 10 UPDATED CASE PROCESSING NOTICE sent. Fee or IFP motion filed in District Court deadline updated to 02/09/2026, for Appellant Roderick White. [25-30596] (DLJ) [Entered: 01/23/2026 11:18 AM] |
| Filing 9 DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 01/07/2026, denying COA for Appellant Mr. Roderick White. Fee or IFP motion filed in District Court deadline updated to 02/09/2026, for Appellant Roderick White. [25-30596] (DLJ) [Entered: 01/23/2026 11:16 AM] |
| Filing 5 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. Awaiting DC Action- COA ruling in DC. [5] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. [25-30596] (AMD) [Entered: 10/28/2025 03:28 PM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Roderick White [25-30596] (SH) [Entered: 10/20/2025 01:29 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: White v. Vannoy | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Roderick White | |
| Represented By: | Roderick White |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Darrel Vannoy, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
