Emmett v. SecurusTech
| Danielle Haran and Barry P. Emmett |
| SecurusTech Corporation |
| 25-50042 |
| January 28, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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 04/07/2025 for Appellant Barry P. Emmett [25-50042] (CAS) [Entered: 03/21/2025 11:40 AM] |
| Filing 12 DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the miscellaneous documents because not related to this case and unable to determine relief [25-50042] (CAS) [Entered: 03/23/2025 04:43 PM] |
| Filing 8 UPDATED CASE PROCESSING NOTICE sent. [25-50042] updated case processin notice sent. Fee due for Appellant Barry P. Emmett 03/14/2025 (EMF) [Entered: 02/27/2025 10:01 AM] |
| Filing 7 CASE CAPTION updated. Involvement terminated for Appellant Danielle Haran in 25-50042. Reason: inadvertently added at case opening. [25-50042] (EMF) [Entered: 02/27/2025 09:58 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 due on 02/18/2025 for Appellants Barry P. Emmett and Danielle Haran [25-50042] (EMF) [Entered: 01/31/2025 08:05 AM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Mr. Barry P. Emmett and Ms. Danielle Haran [25-50042] (EMF) [Entered: 01/28/2025 03:14 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.
