Shane Kitterman v. City of Belleville, et al
| BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, substituted for claims against Leo P. Schmitz in his official capacity, JENNIFER EDWARDS, MIKE MARTIN, DAN COLLINS, CITY OF BELLEVILLE, TRACIE H. NEWTON, official capacity only and ST. CLAIR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT |
| SHANE A. KITTERMAN |
| 20-1919 |
| June 1, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Mandate issued. No record to be returned. [7] [7092232] [20-1919] (CAH) [Entered: 07/09/2020 10:04 AM] |
| FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 06/17/2020 Final Order with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7092237-2] [7092237] [20-1919] (CAH) [Entered: 07/09/2020 10:10 AM] |
| Filing 6 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Shane A. Kitterman. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [6] [7088377] [20-1919] (JR) [Entered: 06/22/2020 10:35 AM] |
Filing 5
ORDER: On 05/26/2020, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from the district courts orders dismissing his case, denying his motion to amend, and overruling his objection; appeal no. 20-1875 was opened. On 06/01/2020, the appellant filed a second notice of appeal combined with additional requests for relief, and appeal no. 20-1919 was opened. Both filings seek to challenge the same district court judgment and rulings, and two separate appeals are not necessary. Accordingly, appeal no. 20-1919 is administratively CLOSED. No appellate filing fees for appeal no. 20-1919 shall be imposed. SCR [5] [7087636] [20-1875, 20-1919] (MM) [Entered: 06/17/2020 02:11 PM]
|
| Filing 4 Pro se combined motion filed by Appellant Shane A. Kitterman in to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and for a certificate of appealability. (Forwarded by the District Court) [4] [7084603] [20-1875, 20-1919] (VG) [Entered: 06/02/2020 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed district court order dated 06/01/2020: Dismissing for lack of jurisdiction [102] Motion for Certificate of Appealability dismissing for lack of jurisdiction [103] Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. On May 28, 2020, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals enter the PLRA Order in this case [100]. In the PLRA Order, the Seventh Circuit held that Kitterman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g), may not proceed in forma pauperis and gave Kitterman up to June 10, 2020 to file the $505.00 appellate filing fee. Thus, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to transmit to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals the motion for certificate of appealability and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. [3] [7084600] [20-1875, 20-1919] (VG) [Entered: 06/02/2020 02:44 PM] |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 1915(g), appellant may not proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the pro se appellant pay the required $505 fees to the clerk of the district court or this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(b). Proceedings are SUSPENDED pending resolution of appellant's fee status on appeal. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 06/15/2020. [2][7084468] [20-1919] (CG) [Entered: 06/02/2020 09:15 AM]
|
| 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. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Shane A. Kitterman by 06/08/2020. Transcript information sheet due by 06/15/2020. [1] [7084464] [20-1919] (CG) [Entered: 06/02/2020 09:07 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.
