Montaz Kennedy v. Samuel Fields, et al
| MONTAZ LEE KENNEDY |
| SAMUEL FIELDS, Building Director, ERIN PORTER, or Eric Staff Specialist, WILLIE J. JOHNSON, Detroit Police Officer, HENRY D. SIMMONS, Detroit Police Officer, FELICIA T. PEOPLES, Detroit Police Officer, JOHN DOE, Detroit Police Officer, CHAD AUDI, Chief Executive Officer and JAMES E. WHITE, Detroit Police Chief |
| 25-1406 |
| April 25, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 10, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER filed: Upon careful consideration, this panel concludes that it did not misapprehend or overlook any point of law or fact when it entered the decision. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(b)(1)(A). The petition for rehearing is DENIED [ # 14 ]. Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chief Circuit Judge; Chad A. Readler and Andre B. Mathis, Circuit Judges. (SSS) [Entered: 10/10/2025 11:47 AM]
|
| Filing 14 PETITION for rehearing before original panel filed by Montaz Lee Kennedy. Certificate of Service: 09/19/2025. (SSS) [Entered: 09/22/2025 03:27 PM] |
| Filing 13 RULING LETTER SENT granting motion to extend time to file rehearing petition until September 23, 2025 [ # 12 ] filed by Montaz Lee Kennedy.. (SSS) [Entered: 09/09/2025 10:36 AM] |
| Filing 12 Appellant MOTION filed by Montaz Lee Kennedy to extend time to file petition for rehearing by 14 days. Certificate of service: 08/14/2025. (SSS) [Entered: 09/04/2025 10:04 AM] |
| Filing 11 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (SSS) [Entered: 08/01/2025 08:19 AM] |
|
Filing 10
ORDER filed to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction., decision not for publication. No mandate to issue. Jane Branstetter Stranch, Chad A. Readler and Andre B. Mathis, Circuit Judges. (SSS) [Entered: 08/01/2025 08:15 AM]
|
| Filing 9 RESPONSE filed to the show cause for late noa, [ # 5 ]. Response filed by Party Montaz Lee Kennedy. Certificate of Service:05/16/2025. (SSS) [Entered: 05/20/2025 01:39 PM] |
| Filing 8 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Name of Counsel: Pro Se ; Montaz Lee Kennedy makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? No 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, with a financial interest in the outcome? No Certificate of Service: 05/05/2025. (SSS) [Entered: 05/13/2025 08:27 AM] |
| Filing 7 APPEARANCE filed for Appellees Chad Audi, Samuel Fields and Erin Porter by Kerry L. Morgan. Certificate of Service: 04/30/2025. [25-1406] (KLM) [Entered: 04/30/2025 09:44 AM] |
| Filing 6 APPEARANCE filed for Appellees Chad Audi, Samuel Fields and Erin Porter by Randall A. Pentiuk. Certificate of Service: 04/30/2025. [25-1406] (RAP) [Entered: 04/30/2025 09:39 AM] |
| Filing 5 SHOW CAUSE order filed: It is therefore ordered that Kennedy show cause in writing not later than 21 days from the date of this order why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. 2107(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Response due by 05/21/2025 for Montaz Lee Kennedy. (SSS) [Entered: 04/30/2025 08:40 AM] |
| Filing 4 LETTER SENT to all parties regarding amended case caption to correct the spelling of the appellant's first name. (SSS) [Entered: 04/30/2025 08:25 AM] |
| Filing 3 Copy of Notice of Appeal filed in district court. Received 04/11/2025 prior to case opening. (SSS) [Entered: 04/28/2025 02:37 PM] |
| Filing 2 The case manager for this case is: Sharday Swain (SSS) [Entered: 04/25/2025 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 1 Civil Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant Montez Lee Kennedy. Transcript needed: n. (SSS) [Entered: 04/25/2025 02:11 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.
