Larry Craig v. Dennis Reagle
Petitioner / Appellant: LARRY CRAIG
Respondent / Appellee: DUSHAN ZATECKY, Superintendent and DENNIS REAGLE, Warden
Case Number: 20-2921
Filed: October 6, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 2, 2020 Filing 10 Filed District Court order dated 12/02/2020. Petitioner-Appellant Larry Craig's November 25, 2020, motion for a certificate of appealability, dkt. [30], is denied as unnecessary. Forwarded to JR. [10] [7125480] [20-2921, 20-3320] (JR) [Entered: 12/03/2020 08:57 AM]
December 2, 2020 Filing 9 Appellee Dushan Zatecky in 20-2921 substituted by Appellee Dennis Reagle in 20-2921, pursuant to FRAP 43(c). Filed Circuit Rule 43 Notice of Substitution by Appellee Dushan Zatecky. [9] [7125358] [20-2921]--[Edited 12/02/2020 by AD to reflect the substitution of party.] (Weiss, Natalie) [Entered: 12/02/2020 02:48 PM]
December 1, 2020 Filing 8 Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellant Larry Craig. [8] [7124912] [20-2921] (CM) [Entered: 12/01/2020 01:27 PM]
December 1, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER: In light of appellant Larry Craigs failure to respond to the courts orders of October 6, 2020, and October 29, 2020, IT IS ORDERED that appellee file, on or before December 8, 2020, a responsive memorandum addressing the jurisdictional issue raised in the courts order of October 6, 2020. DW [7] [7124896] [20-2921] (AG) [Entered: 12/01/2020 12:34 PM]
October 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER re: NOTICE OF PRESENT INABILITY TO INVESTIGATE AND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME APPELLATE BRIEF MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUESTED RELIEF. The motion is GRANTED only to the extent that the appellant shall his response to the courts order dated October 6, 2020, on or before November 12, 2020. To the extent that the appellant seeks recruitment of counsel, that request will be considered by the court as its docket permits. The appellant is reminded, however, that the filing of a motion for appointment of counsel does not relieve him of the obligation to respond to court orders. [ # 5 ] CMD [6] [7118230] [20-2921] (ER) [Entered: 10/29/2020 12:03 PM]
October 28, 2020 Filing 5 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Larry Craig to extend time to file appellant's brief. Forwarded from the District Court. [5] [7117791] [20-2921] (AP) [Entered: 10/28/2020 09:09 AM]
October 28, 2020 Filing 4 Filed district court order dated 10/27/2020. Petitioner-Appellant Larry Craig has appealed the judgment in this action. Dkt. 23. He has filed a motion in this Court for an extension of time to file his appellate brief. Dkt. 28. Mr. Craig should have filed this motion with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court has no authority to rule on appellate extension motions. The clerk is directed to terminate as a motion, dkt. [28], Mr. Craig's October 22, 2020, request for an extension of time. The clerk is also directed to forward a copy of the motion and this Order to the Clerk of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration in appellate case number 20-2921. Forwarded to SCR. [4] [7117789] [20-2921] (AP) [Entered: 10/28/2020 09:08 AM]
October 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Order issued in light of Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000), this case may proceed without a certificate of appealability. MB & CD [3] [7113001] [20-2921] (FP) [Entered: 10/06/2020 03:49 PM]
October 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER: Appellant shall file a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) will satisfy this requirement. If appellant wishes to request an extension of time in which to file the notice of appeal, he should file an appropriate motion in the district court, not this court, as soon as possible. Appellant's jurisdictional memorandum should include a discussion of the status of any such motion. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. (See order for further details) [7112920] Jurisdictional memorandum due for Appellant Larry Craig by 10/20/2020. DW [2] [7112920] [20-2921] (ZNS) [Entered: 10/06/2020 02:40 PM]
October 6, 2020 Filing 1 State prisoner's habeas corpus case docketed. IFP pending in the District Court. Docketing statement filed. Transcript information sheet due by 10/20/2020. [1] [7112874] [20-2921] (FP) [Entered: 10/06/2020 01:11 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: Larry Craig v. Dennis Reagle
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner / appellant: LARRY CRAIG
Represented By: Larry Craig
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 ]
Respondent / appellee: DUSHAN ZATECKY, Superintendent
Represented By: Natalie Weiss
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 ]
Respondent / appellee: DENNIS REAGLE, Warden
Represented By: Natalie Weiss
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.


Why Is My Information Online?