Kurt Johnson v. USA, et al
| KURT JOHNSON |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS and Z. COCHRAN |
| 26-2849 |
| September 9, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 10, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER: The appellant shall file, on or before September 24, 2026, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be LIMITED to review of the August 17, 2026, order summarily denying appellants May 28, 2026, post-judgment motions. Because a preliminary review suggests that any appeal of that August 17, 2026, order may be frivolous, the memorandum must also explain why that order should not be summarily affirmed. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure will satisfy this requirement. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure will satisfy this requirement. (See order for further details.) [7554466] JXK [3] [7554466] [26-2849] (CG) [Entered: 09/10/2026 11:29 AM]
|
| Filing 2 No attorney(s) added for Appellee Z. Cochran, per District Court docket. [2] [7554230] [26-2849] (FP) [Entered: 09/09/2026 03:41 PM] |
| Filing 1 Federal prisoner's habeas corpus case docketed. Fee due. Transcript information sheet due by 09/23/2026. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Kurt Johnson by 09/15/2026. Fee or IFP forms due on 09/23/2026 for Appellant Kurt Johnson. [1] [7554218] [26-2849] (FP) [Entered: 09/09/2026 03:28 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.
