Daniel Mick v. Tim Thomas
| DANIEL J. MICK |
| TIM THOMAS, Warden |
| 25-2482 |
| August 25, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER re: Motion to extend briefing deadline. [ # 7 ]; Briefing in this appeal is SUSPENDED pending resolution of the motion to vacate certificate of appealability filed by the appellee on August 29, 2025. Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary. CDH [8] [7479119] [25-2482] (CG) [Entered: 10/06/2025 03:43 PM]
|
| Filing 7 Motion filed by Appellant Daniel J. Mick to extend time to file appellant brief. [7] [7478855] [25-2482] (Ruby, Cole) [Entered: 10/06/2025 07:52 AM] |
| Filing 6 Motion filed by Appellant Daniel J. Mick Appointment of counsel. [6] [7477710] [25-2482] (Ruby, Cole) [Entered: 09/29/2025 04:28 PM] |
| Filing 5 Motion filed by Appellee Tim Thomas to vacate certificate of appealability. [5] [7471493] [25-2482]--[Edited 08/29/2025 by JMB to reflect relief requested] (Held, Eliot) [Entered: 08/29/2025 09:07 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed District Court order dated 08/27/2025. Respondent's unopposed motion to clarify the scope of the certificate of appealability, Dkt. [24], is GRANTED. The court intends the certificate of appealability to cover the court's entire ruling denying petitioner's habeas petition. Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, Dkt. [25], is GRANTED; the court accepts petitioner's notice of appeal, Dkt. [26]. Petitioner's motion for in forma pauperis status, Dkt. [26], is GRANTED. Forwarded to JXK. [4] [7471082] [25-2482] (JR) [Entered: 08/27/2025 01:45 PM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: The court notes that petitioner Daniel J. Mick was represented in the district court by court-appointed attorney Cole Daniel Ruby. Attorney Cole Daniel Ruby filed a notice of appeal and apparently will represent petitioner in this appeal. Accordingly, counsel is reminded to seek reappointment in this court if he intends to seek compensation under the Criminal Justice Act for his work on appeal. See Johnson v. Chandler, 487 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 2007). [3] [7470864] [25-2482] (JMB) [Entered: 08/26/2025 02:27 PM]
|
| Filing 2 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Cole Daniel Ruby for Appellant Daniel J. Mick. (Note: Disclosure statement filed within docketing statement) [2] [7470860] [25-2482] (JMB) [Entered: 08/26/2025 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 1 State prisoner's habeas corpus case docketed. Certificate of Appealability granted 07/22/2025. IFP. Docketing statement filed. Appellant's brief due on or before 10/06/2025 for Daniel J. Mick. Transcript information sheet due by 09/08/2025. [1] [7470854] [25-2482] (JMB) [Entered: 08/26/2025 02:10 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.
| Search for this case: Daniel Mick v. Tim Thomas | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: DANIEL J. MICK | |
| Represented By: | Cole Daniel Ruby |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: TIM THOMAS, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Eliot M. Held |
| 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 | [ 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.
