David Walsh v. USA
| DAVID WALSH |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 26-1300 |
| February 17, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prisoner Petition-Vacate Sentence |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 2, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER re: Motion. The appellant asks for his appeal to not be docketed and his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis to be withdrawn. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows an appellant to voluntarily dismiss his appeal. Should the appellant decide that he does not want to proceed with this appeal, then he may file an appropriate motion, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), indicating his desire that it be dismissed. Any such motion is due by May 4, 2026. If the appellant does not file a motion to voluntarily dismiss, this appeal will proceed to a determination of whether a certificate of appealability should issue and to a ruling on the appellants motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. CDH [10] [7514936] [26-1300] (HTP) [Entered: 04/02/2026 09:54 AM]
|
| Filing 9 Pro se motion filed by Appellant David Walsh to ensure appeal is not docketed and IFP application is withdrawn. [9] [7514878] [26-1300] (DAB) [Entered: 04/01/2026 04:57 PM] |
| Filing 8 Pro se motion filed by Appellant David Walsh to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. [8] [7511892] [26-1300] (CAG) [Entered: 03/18/2026 03:33 PM] |
| Filing 7 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant David Walsh. Prior or Related proceedings: Yes. 25-3319 [7] [7508657] [26-1300] (CAG) [Entered: 03/03/2026 03:57 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant David Walsh leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. It appears that Plaintiff has filed this motion in response to the Court of Appeals' order instructing Plaintiff to either pay the $605 filing fee in the district court or file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Court denies the motion as improperly filed before this Court, and instructs Plaintiff to instead file his motion before the Court of Appeals.Date IFP denied: 02/24/2026. [6] [7507146] [26-1300] (CG) [Entered: 02/24/2026 04:25 PM] |
| Filing 5 Notification from the District Court that a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is pending. [5] [7506520] [26-1300] (CG) [Entered: 02/23/2026 09:59 AM] |
|
Filing 4
ORDER Re: 1) Letter. 2) Motion for Extension of Time to File a Certificate of Appealability. A review of the district courts docket shows that on January 21, 2026, the appellants motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis was denied. Accordingly, to the extent that the appellant seeks an extension of time, the request is GRANTED. The appellant shall either pay the $605.00 appellate filing fees in the district court or file a motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the clerk of this court by March 17, 2026. The clerk will send the appellant an asset affidavit form. Further, the appellant shall file his overdue Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement by March 4, 2026. The clerk shall send the appellant 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. In his docketing statement, the appellant should attempt to provide the information listed in the Pro Se Instructions, particularly the date of the district court judgment or order being challenged in this appeal. Finally, if the appellant would like to file a separate request for a certificate of appealability with this court, he may do so by April 6, 2026. In the event that the appellant does not file a motion by that date, his notice of appeal previously docketed in this court will be deemed to constitute an application for a certificate of appealability. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). [ # 3 ] CDH [4] [7505816] [26-1300] (AD) [Entered: 02/19/2026 10:02 AM]
|
| Filing 3 Pro se motion filed by Appellant David Walsh to extend time to file a certificate of appealability. [3] [7505302] [26-1300] (NHV) [Entered: 02/17/2026 03:58 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed letter from Appellant David Walsh regarding the IFP motion. [2] [7505299] [26-1300] (NHV) [Entered: 02/17/2026 03:57 PM] |
| Filing 1 Federal prisoner's 2255 case docketed. Certificate of Appealability denied 01/21/2026. IFP on appeal denied on 01/21/2026. Fee due. Transcript information sheet due by 03/03/2026. Docketing Statement due for Appellant David Walsh by 02/17/2026. Fee or IFP forms due on 03/03/2026 for Appellant David Walsh. [1] [7505138] [26-1300]--[Edited 02/18/2026 by AD to updated CA denial.] (AD) [Entered: 02/17/2026 11:31 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.
| Search for this case: David Walsh v. USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: DAVID WALSH | |
| Represented By: | David Walsh |
| 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: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA | |
| Represented By: | Madeleine S. Murphy |
| 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.
