Marcos Santiago v. Chris Rivers
| CHRIS RIVERS |
| MARCOS F. SANTIAGO |
| 20-2696 |
| September 8, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER re: Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, filed on 10/20/2020, by the pro se appellant. A review of the docket indicates that on 09/14/2020, this court ordered the appellant to file a memorandum stating why appeal 20-2696 should not be dismissed as unnecessary because it duplicated appeal 20-2665. On 09/29/2020, the appellant filed a letter requesting that the court dismiss the second of the two appeals, and on 09/30/2020, the clerk dismissed appeal 20-2696. Accordingly, appellant is proceeding in appeal 20-2665. Because is it unclear whether appellant now seeks to dismiss his remaining appeal, the motion will be filed without court action. Should the appellant wish to dismiss remaining appeal 20-2665, he should file a motion that clearly makes such a request. Finally, in order for appeal 20-2665 to proceed, IT IS ORDERED that the appellant either pay the required appellate fees or file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the clerk of the district court by no later than 11/20/2020. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of appeal 20-2665 for failure to prosecute. Cir. R. 3(b). Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 7019 0700 0000 6008 0608. CMD [5] [7116514] [20-2665, 20-2696] (MM) [Entered: 10/22/2020 10:12 AM]
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER re: Letter in Response to the court's 09/14/2020 order. This cause is DISMISSED pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b). Mandate issued, no record to be returned. [4] [7111624] [20-2696] (MM) [Entered: 09/30/2020 03:09 PM]
|
| FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 09/30/2020 Final Order with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7111630-2] [7111630] [20-2696] (MM) [Entered: 09/30/2020 03:21 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Marcos F. Santiago's letter in response to the court's 09/14/2020 order. [3] [7111501] [20-2696] (PS) [Entered: 09/30/2020 10:56 AM] |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: The appellant shall file a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed as unnecessary. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. (See order for further details) [7107609] [2] Memorandum due for Appellant Marcos F. Santiago by 09/28/2020. DW [2] [7107609] [20-2696] (ER) [Entered: 09/14/2020 04:48 PM]
|
| Filing 1 Federal prisoner's habeas corpus case docketed. Fee due. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Marcos F. Santiago by 09/15/2020. Fee or IFP forms due on 09/22/2020 for Appellant Marcos F. Santiago. Transcript information sheet due by 09/22/2020. [1] [7106118] [20-2696] (ER) [Entered: 09/08/2020 01:06 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.
| Search for this case: Marcos Santiago v. Chris Rivers | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: CHRIS RIVERS | |
| Represented By: | Vincenza LaMonica Tomlinson |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: MARCOS F. SANTIAGO | |
| Represented By: | Marcos F. Santiago |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
