Thomas v. Pike Cty
| Landon Earl Thomas |
| Pike County |
| 26-60050 |
| January 29, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Prison Conditions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 5, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| 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 04/01/2026 for Appellant Landon Earl Thomas [26-60050] (IAC) [Entered: 02/05/2026 08:14 AM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Landon Earl Thomas [26-60050] (IAC) [Entered: 01/29/2026 09:10 AM] |
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: Thomas v. Pike Cty | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Landon Earl Thomas | |
| Represented By: | Landon Earl Thomas |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant: Pike County | |
| Represented By: | William Robert Allen Esq. |
| 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.
