Thomas v. West
| Antione Thomas |
| Michael J. West, District Attorney, Unknown Jackson, Judge, Smith County, Larry Smith, Sheriff, Smith County, Kurt Noel and Quincy Beavers, Judge, Smith County |
| 25-40085 |
| February 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 8, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 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 04/23/2025 for Appellant Antione Thomas. [25-40085] (RLL) [Entered: 04/08/2025 12:55 PM] |
| Filing 11 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [11] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [25-40085] (SR) [Entered: 04/01/2025 11:47 AM] |
| Filing 7 CASE CAPTION updated. Additional appeal filed. [7] NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Antione Thomas. [7] [25-40085] (SR) [Entered: 03/26/2025 04:36 PM] |
| Filing 6 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [6] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [25-40085] (SR) [Entered: 02/21/2025 02:38 PM] |
| Filing 5 DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 02/20/2025 denying IFP for Appellant Mr. Antoine Thomas because appeal is not taken in good faith - fee assessed - BAUGH case. Fee due or motion for IFP in 5CCA on 03/24/2025 for Appellant Antoine Thomas [25-40085] (SR) [Entered: 02/21/2025 02:21 PM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Antoine Thomas [25-40085] (SR) [Entered: 02/20/2025 02:53 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.
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.
