Brad Lieberman, et al v. Gregg Scott
| SAMUEL RUTHERFORD, MARK A. TELFORD, KENNETH SEIDLER, DAVID L. ISBELL and BRAD LIEBERMAN |
| GREGG SCOTT |
| 19-1432 |
| March 11, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellee Gregg Scott. [11] [6999825] [19-1432] (Iskowich, David) [Entered: 04/23/2019 12:30 PM] |
Filing 10
ORDER re: Brief/Memorandum in Support of Appeal Submitted by Appellants Pursuant to Order by Court of Appeals on April 5, 2019, filed by appellants on April 10, 2019. IT IS ORDERED that appellee file, on or before April 23, 2019, a response to appellants filing, addressing the jurisdictional issue raised in the courts order of April 5, 2019. DW [10] [6998475] [19-1432] (PS) [Entered: 04/16/2019 02:21 PM]
|
| Filing 9 1 copy Appellant's brief filed by Appellants David L. Isbell, Brad Lieberman, Samuel Rutherford, Kenneth Seidler and Mark A. Telford. Disk not required. [9] [6997071] [19-1432] (CCG) [Entered: 04/10/2019 03:45 PM] |
| Filing 8 Jurisdictional memorandum with exhibits filed by Appellants Brad Lieberman, David L. Isbell, Samuel Rutherford, Kenneth Seidler, Mark A. Telford, et al. (Documents forwarded from the District Court.) [8] [6997054] [19-1432] (JR) [Entered: 04/10/2019 03:19 PM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: Appellants shall file a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Briefing shall be SUSPENDED pending further court order. [6995990] Jurisdictional memorandum due for Appellants by 04/19/2019. (See order for further details) DW [7] [6995990] [19-1432] (VG) [Entered: 04/05/2019 04:09 PM]
|
| Filing 5 Docketing Statement filed by Appellee Gregg Scott. Prior or Related proceedings: Yes. 17-3420, 14-2561, 13-2583, 06-1678, 05-3922, 04-1380, 03-2914, 03-1443, 03-1100, 03-1029, 00-1176, 99-2123, 95-3179, 95-3194, 12-2772 [5] [6995334] [19-1432] (Iskowich, David) [Entered: 04/03/2019 04:27 PM] |
| Filing 4 Appearance form filed by Attorney David H. Iskowich for Appellee Gregg Scott. [4] [6992674] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-Yes) [19-1432]--[Edited 03/22/2019 by FP to reflect that atty. Glick is termed and atty. Iskowich is added to the docket.] (Iskowich, David) [Entered: 03/22/2019 02:49 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed notice from the District Court that a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is pending. [6] [6995690] [19-1432] (CAG) [Entered: 04/05/2019 08:46 AM] |
| Filing 3 Docketing Statement filed by Appellants David L. Isbell, Brad Lieberman, Samuel Rutherford, Kenneth Seidler and Mark A. Telford. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [3] [6991482] [19-1432] (CAG) [Entered: 03/18/2019 04:09 PM] |
| Filing 2 THIS CAUSE CONSISTS OF MORE THAN 5 PARTIES FOR EITHER SIDE. The following are those parties to this cause as reflected on the District Court docket, yet are not reflected on the Appellate docket/caption for administrative purposes: APPELLANTS: William Ragel, Christopher Tatara, Michael Hansen, Michael Halbrook, Samuel Lewis, Christopher L. Derry and Anthony Lepard. [2] [6990128] [19-1432] (MM) [Entered: 03/12/2019 09:11 AM] |
| Filing 1 State prisoners' habeas corpus case docketed. Certificate of Appealability denied 02/15/2019. Fee due. Docketing Statement due for Appellants David L. Isbell, Brad Lieberman, Samuel Rutherford, Kenneth Seidler and Mark A. Telford by 03/18/2019. Fee or IFP forms due on 03/25/2019 for Appellants David L. Isbell, Brad Lieberman, Samuel Rutherford, Kenneth Seidler and Mark A. Telford. Transcript information sheet due by 03/25/2019. [1] [6990114] [19-1432] (MM) [Entered: 03/12/2019 08:54 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US 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.
