Antonio White v. Terry Russell, et al
| Unknown Holton, Correctional Officer, Individually, Unknown Gang Task Force Officers, Individually and Official Capacity, Unknown Bashim, Correctional Officer, Individually, Unknown Investigator, Individually and Official Capacity, Mr. Lindsay, Mental Health Counselor, Individually and Official Capacity, Mr. Anderson, C.O.I.I. Individually and Official Capacity, Butterworth, Ad Seg Committee Chairman, Individually and Official Capacity and Unknown Vandergriff, Major, Individually |
| Alan Butterworth, Michele Basham, Individually, Kathy Moore, Terry Russell, Superintendent, Individually, Diane Montgomery, Stacey Halton, Individually and David Vandergriff, Individually |
| Antonio Ricardo White |
| 19-1271 |
| February 7, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER:Denying [ # 4766381-2 ] motion ext of time to file brief as moot, filed by Appellant Antonio Ricardo White. Briefing schedule was issued in error and vacated. The fee for this case is still being determined in the district court. Upon review and ruling by the district court of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis which was submitted on March 11, 2019, the appellant will be apprised of further action in this matter. [4766387] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 03/13/2019 04:28 PM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis w/attached affidavit (Forwarded to district court for a ruling), filed by Appellant Antonio Ricardo White w/service 03/11/2019. [4766365] [19-1271]--[Edited 03/13/2019 by AEV] (AEV) [Entered: 03/13/2019 04:00 PM] |
| MOTION for a 30 day extension of time to file Brief [4766381], filed by Appellant Antonio Ricardo White w/service 03/11/2019. [4766381] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 03/13/2019 04:24 PM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of originating court order of 02/11/2019 stating that plaintiff shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, either pay the $505 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with a certified copy of his prisoner account statement, [4766379] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 03/13/2019 04:22 PM] |
| UPDATED fee status - [Case Number 19-1271: plra] [4754710] [19-1271] UPDATED fee status - [4754710] [19-1271]--- fee updated to Pending--[Edited 03/13/2019 by AEV] (AEV) [Entered: 02/08/2019 10:22 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER:for limited remand. This case is remanded to district court for calculation and collection of appellate filing fees pursuant to Henderson v. Norris, 129F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 1997). Additionally, the order filed Feb 7, 2019 directing appellant to resolve the fee is hereby Vacated. [4754694] [19-1271]--[Edited 02/08/2019 by AEV] (AEV) [Entered: 02/08/2019 10:10 AM] |
| CLERK LETTER sent regarding notice of limited remand and briefing schedule set due to error in case opening which initially directed White to resolve the fee issue. [4754715] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 02/08/2019 10:28 AM] |
| VACATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: If the original file of the U.S. District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by 8th Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with 8th Circuit Local Rule 30A (a)(2), the clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Antonio Ricardo White due 03/20/2019. Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. [4754713] [19-1271]--[Edited 03/14/2019 by AEV] (AEV) [Entered: 02/08/2019 10:23 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Memorandum and Order 1/7/19, Order of Partial Dismissal and Judgment 1/7/19, docket entries, [4754564] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 02/07/2019 04:10 PM] |
| VACATED CLERK ORDER:The $505 appellate filing and docketing fee has not been paid and is due. Appellant is directed to either pay the fee in the district court or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court within 21 days of the date of this order. If appellant does not pay the fee or move for IFP status by 02/28/2019, a show cause order will be entered directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. [4754566] [19-1271]--[Edited 02/08/2019 by AEV] (AEV) [Entered: 02/07/2019 04:11 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER:If the original file of the United States District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by Eighth Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with Eighth Circuit Local Rule 30A(a)(2), the Clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER, including any documents maintained in paper format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files. These documents should be submitted within 10 days. [4754569] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 02/07/2019 04:15 PM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [4754559] [19-1271] (AEV) [Entered: 02/07/2019 04:01 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US 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.
