Anthony Boyce v. Jason Peterburs, et al
| ANTHONY BOYCE |
| KIMBERLY FOX, COOK COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, JOHN DOE, JASON PETERBURS and STATE OF ILLINOIS |
| 24-3315 |
| December 26, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 6, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Anthony Boyce in 24-3230, 24-3315 leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 02/05/2025. [8] [7433385] PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 03/10/2025. [24-3230, 24-3315] (CAG) [Entered: 02/06/2025 03:45 PM] |
Filing 7
ORDER: Motion for instructions and clarification on appeal, filed on 1/8/2025. 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 an extension of time, the appellants overdue Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement is due by January 27, 2025. Further, any other relief requested in the appellants motion is DENIED without court action, pursuant to the courts fee notice and order dated December 26, 2024. If the appellant would like copies of items in the district court record, he should make that request in the district court. Finally, a review of the district courts docket shows that on December 23, 2024, the appellant filed a second notice of appeal which was opened as appeal no. 24-3315. The clerk shall send the appellant a copy of the courts public docket for appeal no. 24-3315. CDH [7] [7428621] [24-3315] (FP) [Entered: 01/13/2025 04:13 PM]
|
| Filing 6 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Anthony Boyce for clarification. [6] [7427902] [24-3230] (CAG) [Entered: 01/08/2025 03:49 PM] |
|
Filing 5
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. [5] [7425964] JR [24-3315] (CG) [Entered: 12/27/2024 12:22 PM]
|
| Filing 4 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Anthony Boyce in 24-3230, 24-3315 to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [4] [7425758] [24-3230, 24-3315] (DAB) [Entered: 12/26/2024 02:59 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: John Doe, sued in individual capacity; John Doe, Supervisors; John Doe, telephone company. [3] [7425694] [24-3315] (CG) [Entered: 12/26/2024 12:19 PM] |
| Filing 2 This is notification that no appellee(s) or counsel for the appellee(s) were served in the District Court. [2] [7425690] (Note: The Office of the IL Attorney General has been notified of the filing of the appeal.) [24-3315] (CG) [Entered: 12/26/2024 12:11 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 Anthony Boyce by 12/30/2024. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 01/27/2025. Transcript information sheet due by 01/09/2025. [1] [7425682] [24-3315] (CG) [Entered: 12/26/2024 11:57 AM] |
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.
