Charles Randle v. Walter Nicholson, et al
| CHARLES RANDLE |
| WALTER NICHOLSON, Warden, DAVID GOMEZ, CHRISTIAN OKEZIE, LATONYA WILLIAMS and MICHAEL BUBASH |
| 24-2852 |
| October 17, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 15, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER: This appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and therefore all proceedings are suspended pending the assessment and payment of any necessary fees. 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. Accordingly, to the extent that the appellant seeks appointment of counsel, the request is DENIED without court action, pursuant to this courts fee notice and order dated October 17, 2024. Further, the appellant shall file his overdue Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement by December 2, 2024. [9] [7418215] CDH [24-2852] (FP) [Entered: 11/15/2024 02:13 PM]
|
|
Filing 8
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. [8] [7418154] JR [24-2852] (CG) [Entered: 11/15/2024 12:13 PM]
|
| Filing 7 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Charles Randle for appointment of appellate counsel with memorandum. [7] [7417951] [24-2852] (CAH) [Entered: 11/14/2024 03:43 PM] |
| Filing 6 Prose motion filed by Appellant Charles Randle to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [6] [7417950] [24-2852] (CAH) [Entered: 11/14/2024 03:42 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed district court order dated 11/05/2024, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to apply to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted insofar as the court will send plaintiff blank forms to use to apply for IFP status. Plaintiff has until 12/10/24 to apply for IFP status or pay the $605 appellate filing fee. [5] [7415865] [24-2852] (CAG) [Entered: 11/05/2024 11:21 AM] |
| Filing 4 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Julie A. Teuscher for Appellees Christian Okezie and Latonya Williams. for Dr. Evaristo Aguinaldo. Additional Parties: Wexford Health Sources, Inc.. [4] [7412520] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-Yes) [24-2852] [4] [7412520] [24-2852]--[Edited 10/21/2024 by HTP to reflect termination and addition of counsel.] (Teuscher, Julie) [Entered: 10/21/2024 12:11 PM] |
| Filing 3 No attorney(s) added for Appellee Michael Bubash, per District Court docket and information sheet. [3] [7412181] [24-2852] (HTP) [Entered: 10/18/2024 12:16 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: Evaristo Aguinaldo, Wexford Health Sources, Sherwin Miles, Terrell Pork, and Sergeant Baton. [2] [7412180] [24-2852] (HTP) [Entered: 10/18/2024 12:15 PM] |
| 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. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Charles Randle by 10/23/2024. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 11/18/2024. Transcript information sheet due by 10/31/2024. [1] [7412174] [24-2852] (HTP) [Entered: 10/18/2024 12:08 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
