Robert Mofield v. William Lindauer, et al
| ROBERT E. MOFIELD |
| WILLIAM LINDAUER, BENDER LAW OFFICE, LLC and CO-CONSPIRATORS |
| 26-2108 |
| May 21, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 10, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Robert E. Mofield leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 07/10/2026. [6] [7539192] [26-2108] (CG) [Entered: 07/10/2026 03:32 PM] |
Filing 5
ORDER: In light of the district courts May 27, 2026, order denying appellants motion to alter or amend the judgment, this appeal will proceed to a determination of appellants fee status. JXK [7536483] [26-2108] (AD) [Entered: 06/30/2026 10:39 AM]
|
| Filing 4 Filed District Court order DENYING Appellant Robert E. Mofield leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Date IFP denied: 05/27/2026. The Court remains persuaded its dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was correct. Plaintiff's Motion to Alter, Amend, or Reopen Judgment, (Docket No. 21), is therefore DENIED. Issued Circuit Rule 3(b) 30 day notice for failure to pay the docketing fee. Fee or IFP forms due on 06/29/2026 for Appellant Robert E. Mofield [7528873] [4] [7528873] [26-2108] (AP) [Entered: 05/28/2026 11:34 AM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER: A preliminary review of the short record suggests that the order appealed from may not yet be a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291. A notice of appeal filed before the district court issues its ruling on a timely motion under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is ineffective until the order disposing of the motion is entered on the district courts civil docket. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). In the present case, appellant filed a memorandum in support of a motion to alter, amend, or reopen judgment on May 20, 2026, within 28 days of entry of judgment on April 28, 2026. This document may be a timely Rule 59 motion. See Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 758 F.3d 819, 82526 (7th Cir. 2014). As such, it appears to render this appeal premature, because the district court has not yet disposed of the motion and entered its order on the civil docket. Florian v. Sequa Corp., 294 F.3d 828, 829 (7th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, proceedings in this appeal are SUSPENDED pending the district court's resolution of any Rule 59 motion. If a party contends that this appeal should not be suspended, then that party should file a brief memorandum on or before June 9, 2026, stating why suspension is not appropriate. Further, appellant shall file a status report within seven days of a ruling on the memorandum, or on or shortly before June 26, 2026, if no order has yet issued. [3] JXK [3] [7528174] [26-2108] (AD) [Entered: 05/26/2026 12:45 PM]
|
| Filing 2 This is notification that no appellee(s) or counsel for the appellee(s) were served in the District Court. [2] [7527980] [26-2108] (FP) [Entered: 05/22/2026 04:36 PM] |
| Filing 1 Private civil case docketed. IFP pending in the District Court. Docketing statement filed. Transcript information sheet due by 06/04/2026. [1] [7527977] [26-2108] (FP) [Entered: 05/22/2026 04:30 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.
