Megan Kyte v. Marion County Police
| MEGAN KYTE |
| MARION COUNTY POLICE |
| 21-1754 |
| April 28, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 25, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 IT IS ORDERED that Appellant Megan Kyte show cause as to why this case should not be DISMISSED for failure to tender the PLRA memorandum as directed in the district court's 05/19/2021 order. Response to Rule to Showcause due for Appellant Megan Kyte by 07/09/2021. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 7020 2450 0001 4762 2088. [9] [7169381] [21-1754] (DRS) [Entered: 06/25/2021 04:28 PM] |
| Filing 8 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Adam S. Willfond for Appellee Marion County Police. [8] [7165735] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [21-1754] [8] [7165735] [21-1754]--[Edited 06/09/2021 by ZNS to reflect the addition of counsel] (Willfond, Adam) [Entered: 06/09/2021 08:30 AM] |
| Filing 7 Prose motion filed by Appellant Megan Kyte to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [7] [7164371] [21-1754] (CM) [Entered: 06/02/2021 03:10 PM] |
| Filing 6 1 copy Appellant's brief filed by Appellant Megan Kyte. Disk not required. [6] [7162572] [21-1754] (MAN) [Entered: 05/25/2021 09:23 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Megan Kyte leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 05/19/2021. [5] [7161421] PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 06/18/2021 [21-1754] (CM) [Entered: 05/19/2021 01:15 PM] |
Filing 4
ORDER: TRANSFERRING the motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on appeal to the clerk of the District Court for ruling in the first instance. [4] [7160062] JR [21-1754] (CG) [Entered: 05/13/2021 10:23 AM]
|
| Filing 3 Prose motion filed by Appellant Megan Kyte to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [3] [7160030] [21-1754] (CM) [Entered: 05/13/2021 09:38 AM] |
| Filing 2 This is notification that no appellee(s) or counsel for the appellee(s) were served in the District Court. [2] [7157016] (Note: The Office of the Marion County States Attorney has been notified of the filing of the appeal.) [21-1754] (ZNS) [Entered: 04/29/2021 11:21 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. Fee Due. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Megan Kyte by 04/30/2021. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 05/28/2021. Transcript information sheet due by 05/12/2021. [1] [7157009] [21-1754] (ZNS) [Entered: 04/29/2021 11:05 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.
| Search for this case: Megan Kyte v. Marion County Police | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: MEGAN KYTE | |
| Represented By: | Megan Kyte |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant / appellee: MARION COUNTY POLICE | |
| Represented By: | Adam S. Willfond |
| 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.
