Tracy Hopkins v. Tippecanoe County Jail, et al
| TRACY R. HOPKINS |
| TIPPECANOE COUNTY JAIL, ROBERT W. GOLDSMITH, TOM LEHMEN, CARRIE MORGAN and VINCE ANDREW |
| 23-1951 |
| May 19, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Tracy R. Hopkins. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [9] [7320326] [23-1951] (CAH) [Entered: 06/29/2023 12:19 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Tracy R. Hopkins leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 06/16/2023. [8] [7318257] PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 07/21/2023 [23-1951] (CAG) [Entered: 06/21/2023 11:11 AM] |
Filing 7
ORDER re: Motion appealing dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A with memorandum of law. This appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and therefore all proceedings will remain suspended until the appellant's fee status has been determined. See Newlin v. Helman, 123 F.3d 429, 434 (7th Cir. 1997). A review of the docket indicates that the appellants fee status has not yet been determined. Specifically, the appellants motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is currently pending before the district court. The motion is DENIED without court action, pursuant to the courts fee notice and order dated May 19, 2023. The appellant shall file his overdue Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement by July 12, 2023. The clerk shall send the appellant a copy of this courts instructions for preparing a docketing statement so the appellant may familiarize himself with the information that must be included in a Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement. [7] [7316330] CDH [23-1951] (CG) [Entered: 06/12/2023 10:04 AM]
|
|
Filing 6
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. [6] [7316230] JR [23-1951] (CG) [Entered: 06/09/2023 03:30 PM]
|
| Filing 5 Prose motion filed by Appellant Tracy R. Hopkins to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [5] [7316206] [23-1951] (LCP) [Entered: 06/09/2023 02:59 PM] |
| Filing 4 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Tracy R. Hopkins appealing dismissal pursuant 28 U.S.C. 1915A with memorandum of law. [4] [7316203] [23-1951]--[Edited 06/12/2023 by CG to reflect title of document filed.] (LCP) [Entered: 06/09/2023 02:55 PM] |
| Filing 3 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: Laurisa Huber; Ashely Waters: Cheryl Hopkins; c/o David; [3] [7312011] [23-1951] (FP) [Entered: 05/22/2023 11:45 AM] |
| Filing 2 This is notification that no appellee(s) or counsel for the appellee(s) were served in the District Court. [2] [7312010] (Note: The Office of the IN Attorney General has been notified of the filing of the appeal.) [23-1951] (FP) [Entered: 05/22/2023 11:42 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 Fee due. Transcript information sheet due by 06/02/2023. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Tracy R. Hopkins by 05/25/2023. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 06/20/2023. [1] [7312006] [23-1951] (FP) [Entered: 05/22/2023 11:34 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.
