Samuel Zimmerman v. Cassandra Baier, et al
| SAMUEL ZIMMERMAN |
| CASSANDRA BAIER, ELLYN BAKER and CHRISTOPHER STEVENS |
| 26-2606 |
| August 4, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 4, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER re: Motion to dismiss case. [ # 6 ] This appeal is voluntarily DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). No filing fee is due for this appeal. Samuel Zimmerman has informed the court that he did not authorize anyone to file a notice of appeal on his behalf, and the notice filed in the district court was sent from another prison. Because Zimmerman did not file, sign, or authorize the notice of appeal, he should not incur an obligation to pay the appellate filing fee. See Newlin v. Helman , 123 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 1997). Mandate issued, no record to be returned. Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judge. [7][7553235] [26-2606] (PS) [Entered: 09/04/2026 11:36 AM]
|
| FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 09/04/2026 Final Order with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7553241-2] [7553241] [26-2606] (PS) [Entered: 09/04/2026 11:45 AM] |
| Filing 6 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Samuel Zimmerman to dismiss this case. [6] [7552299] [26-2606] (EHF) [Entered: 09/01/2026 03:26 PM] |
| Filing 5 Appearance form filed by Attorney Colin Roth for Appellees Christopher Stevens, Ellyn Baker and Cassandra Baier. [5] [7550639] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-Yes) [26-2606] (Roth, Colin) [Entered: 08/26/2026 08:26 AM] |
| Filing 4 Appearance form filed by Attorney Colin Roth for Appellees Christopher Stevens, Ellyn Baker and Cassandra Baier. [4] [7550638] (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-Yes) [26-2606] [4] [7550638] [26-2606]--[Edited 08/26/2026 by HTP to reflect termination and addition of counsel.] (Reynolds Colbert, Frances) [Entered: 08/26/2026 08:01 AM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER re: Motion to dismiss appeal. [ # 2 ] The appellant has asked the court to dismiss this appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows an appellant to voluntarily dismiss his appeal. However, the appellant is reminded that this appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act and therefore the filing of a notice of appeal triggers the obligation to pay the appropriate filing fees and voluntary dismissal does not relieve the appellant of the obligation to pay the appellate filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b). Further, once the appeal is dismissed, the appellant cannot reinstate it at a later date. Because it is unclear whether the appellant seeks to unconditionally dismiss this appeal, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Should the appellant decide that he does not want to proceed with this appeal, he may file a renewed motion that complies with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Any such motion is due by August 31, 2026. CDH [3] [7548264] [26-2606] (PS) [Entered: 08/17/2026 04:32 PM]
|
| Filing 2 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Samuel Zimmerman to dismiss case. [2] [7547888] [26-2606] (NHV) [Entered: 08/14/2026 03:16 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 Samuel Zimmerman by 08/10/2026. Transcript information sheet due by 08/18/2026. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 09/03/2026. [1] [7545468] [26-2606] (PS) [Entered: 08/05/2026 12:29 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.
