Victor Brown v. Daniel LaVoie, et al
| VICTOR R. BROWN |
| DANIEL L. LAVOIE, JAY VAN LANEN, DREW WEYCKER, JOSHUA GOMM and TRISTAN RETZLAFF |
| 22-1585 |
| April 8, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| Victor Brown v. Daniel LaVoie |
 Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie
|
|
Victor R. Brown v. Daniel LaVoie
|
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER: The District Court GRANTED the appellant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and has now received the initial partial filing fee. Briefing will proceed as follows: Appellant's brief due on or before 07/05/2022 for Victor R. Brown. Appellee's brief due on or before 08/02/2022 for Joshua Gomm, Daniel L. LaVoie, Jay Van Lanen, Tristan Retzlaff and Drew Weycker. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 08/23/2022 for Appellant Victor R. Brown [8] [7240311] [22-1585] (CAG) [Entered: 06/03/2022 09:57 AM]
|
| Filing 7 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Victor R. Brown. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [7] [7240156] [22-1585] (CAG) [Entered: 06/02/2022 02:17 PM] |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: Appellant Victor R. Brown is directed to file the overdue Docketing Statement within 14 days from the date of this Rule to Show Cause. Docketing statement response due for Appellant Victor R. Brown by 06/07/2022. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 7018 0360 0000 5171 0771. [6] [7238209] [22-1585] (AD) [Entered: 05/24/2022 01:01 PM]
|
| Filing 5 ***PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT PARTIAL FILING FEE. Received: $6.62 from Appellant Victor R. Brown on 05/17/2022. [5] [7236933] [22-1585] (SK) [Entered: 05/18/2022 11:16 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed District Court order GRANTING Appellant Victor R. Brown leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP granted: 05/03/2022. District Court has assessed a $6.62 initial partial filing fee. [4] [7234031] PLRA initial partial filing fee due by 05/16/2022. [22-1585] (CAG) [Entered: 05/04/2022 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 3 Attorney Eliot M. Held for Drew Weycker, Tristan Retzlaff, Jay Van Lanen, Daniel L. LaVoie and Joshua Gomm in 22-1585 terminated and added Attorney(s) Jody J. Schmelzer for party(s) Appellee Daniel L. LaVoie Appellee Tristan Retzlaff Appellee Drew Weycker Appellee Jay Van Lanen Appellee Joshua Gomm, in case 22-1585 per appearance form. Appearance form filed by Attorney Jody J. Schmelzer for Appellees Daniel L. LaVoie, Jay Van Lanen, Joshua Gomm, Tristan Retzlaff and Drew Weycker. [3] [7229976] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-Yes) [22-1585]--[Edited 04/15/2022 by AD to reflect the termination and addition of counsel.] (Schmelzer, Jody) [Entered: 04/14/2022 04:25 PM] |
| Filing 2 THIS CAUSE CONSISTS OF MORE THAN 5 PARTIES FOR EITHER SIDE. The following are those parties to this cause as reflected on the District Court docket, yet are not reflected on the Appellate docket/caption for administrative purposes: APPELLEES: Alex Bonis, Michael Neveu, Miles S. Arne, Justin Maher, David Yang, Jason Gibbs and Colin Fruebrodt. [2] [7228703] [22-1585] (ER) [Entered: 04/11/2022 11:48 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 IFP pending in the District Court. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Victor R. Brown by 04/15/2022. Transcript information sheet due by 04/22/2022. [1] [7228700] [22-1585] (ER) [Entered: 04/11/2022 11:39 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.
