Abdul Mohammed v. Jorge Alonso, et al
| GARY FEINERMAN, District Judge, JORGE L. ALONSO, District Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge and JOHN ROBERT BLAKEY, District Judge |
| ABDUL AZEEM MOHAMMED |
| 20-2310 |
| July 20, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Prose motion filed by Appellant Mr. Abdul Azeem Mohammed in 20-2310, 20-2390 to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [9] [7105656] [20-2310, 20-2390] (CM) [Entered: 09/04/2020 08:47 AM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Showcause Response by Appellant Mr. Abdul Azeem Mohammed. (Forwarded from the District Court) [8][7105617] [20-2310]--[Edited 09/03/2020 by CM] (CM) [Entered: 09/03/2020 04:21 PM] |
Filing 7
ORDER: The court, on its own motion, orders appellant Abdul Mohammed to show cause for his failure to respond to the courts order of July 30, 2020. Appellant is advised that failure to respond may result in dismissal of this appeal. The clerk is directed to attach a copy of the courts order of July 30, 2020, to appellants copy of this order. Response to Rule to Showcause due for Appellant Abdul Azeem Mohammed by 09/17/2020. DW Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 7019 0140 000 6080 4109. [7] [7105540] [20-2310] (ZNS) [Entered: 09/03/2020 02:26 PM]
|
| Filing 6 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Mr. Abdul Azeem Mohammed leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 08/04/2020. Issued Circuit Rule 3(b) 30 day notice for failure to pay the docketing fee. Fee or IFP forms due on 09/04/2020 for Appellant Abdul Azeem Mohammed [7098714] [6] [7098714] [20-2310] (AP) [Entered: 08/05/2020 09:11 AM] |
| Filing 5 Notification from the District Court that a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is pending. [5] [7098447] [20-2310, 20-2390] (CG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 12:19 PM] |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: A preliminary review of the short record indicates that this appeal duplicates a later, timely appeal filed on July 23, 2020, and docketed in this court as Appeal No. 20-2390. The only difference between the two appeals appears to be that the later-filed appeal bears appellant Abdul Azeem Mohammeds signature. Only one appeal is necessary, the other should be dismissed. Harris v. Bellin Memorial Hospital, 13 F.3d 1082, 1083 (7th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the appellant Abdul Azeem Mohammed shall file, on or before August 12, 2020, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed as unnecessary. A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) will satisfy this requirement. Briefing shall remain suspended pending further court order. DW [7097290] [4] [4] [7097290] [20-2310] (CG) [Entered: 07/30/2020 08:54 AM]
|
| Filing 3 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Mr. Abdul Azeem Mohammed. Prior or Related proceedings: Yes. 19-2728, 19-3140, 20-1174 [3] [7096370] [20-2310] (CM) [Entered: 07/27/2020 01:50 PM] |
| Filing 2 This is notification that no appellee(s) or counsel for the appellee(s) were served in the District Court. [2] [7095013] (Note: The Office of the IL Attorney General and the Office of the US Attorney have been notified of the filing of the appeal.) [20-2310] (MM) [Entered: 07/21/2020 10:26 AM] |
| Filing 1 U.S. civil case docketed. Fee due. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Abdul Azeem Mohammed by 07/27/2020. Transcript information sheet due by 08/03/2020. Fee or IFP forms due on 08/03/2020 for Appellant Abdul Azeem Mohammed. [1] [7094993] [20-2310] (MM) [Entered: 07/21/2020 10:16 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.
