Adrian Thomas v. James Blackard, et al
| JAMES S. BLACKARD and TODD PUNKE |
| ADRIAN THOMAS |
| 20-1718 |
| April 30, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 29, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Filed district court order dated 06/25/2020, Pursuant 28 U.S. C. Section 1915(b)(1), the plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2.43. [9] [7089774] PLRA initial partial filing fee due by 07/29/2020. [20-1718] (CM) [Entered: 06/29/2020 08:57 AM] |
Filing 8
ORDER re: 1) Petition for Leave to File and Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. [ # 4 ] 2) Memorandum in Support of PLRA Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis.Upon consideration of the request for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal, the appellants motion filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, the district courts order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) certifying that the appeal was filed in bad faith, and the record on appeal, this court has determined that the district court erred in its bad-faith determination. Appellant Adrian Thomas may be able to raise a non-frivolous argument that the district court erred in entering summary judgment on his conditions-of-confinement claim. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The district court is instructed to assess an initial partial filing fee for the appeal and to notify this court when the partial fee has been collected. [8] [7088582] EBG [20-1718] (AD) [Entered: 06/22/2020 04:17 PM]
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER re: Motion for Appointment of Counsel. [ # 6 ] This appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and all proceedings are suspended pending the assessment and payment of any necessary fees. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997). A review of the docket indicates that the appellants motion for leave to procced on appeal in forma pauperis is currently pending before this court. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without court action, pursuant to this court's fee notice and order dated April 30, 2020. [7] [7082367] CMD [20-1718] (AD) [Entered: 05/21/2020 09:20 AM]
|
| Filing 6 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Adrian Thomas for appointment of counsel. [6] [7081543] [20-1718] (CAH) [Entered: 05/18/2020 12:56 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Adrian Thomas Memorandum In Support of PLRA Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. [5] [7081541] [20-1718] (CAH) [Entered: 05/18/2020 12:54 PM] |
| Filing 4 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Adrian Thomas to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [4] [7081538] [20-1718] (CAH) [Entered: 05/18/2020 12:49 PM] |
| Filing 3 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Adrian Thomas. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [3] [7081537] [20-1718] (CAH) [Entered: 05/18/2020 12:48 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Adrian Thomas leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 05/06/2020. [2] [7079360] PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 06/05/2020 [20-1718] (CM) [Entered: 05/06/2020 04:29 PM] |
| Filing 1 State prisoner's civil rights case docketed. IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Proceedings are SUSPENDED pending notification by the district court that any necessary fee has been assessed, and if assessed, paid. PLRA Fee due. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 06/01/2020. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Adrian Thomas by 05/07/2020. Transcript information sheet due by 05/14/2020. [1] [7078079] [20-1718] (VG) [Entered: 04/30/2020 02:49 PM] |
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.
