Ronald Jordan v. James Coffman, et al
| Ronald K. Jordan |
| James H. Coffman, Steve Martin, Anne L. Precythe, Robert Savage, Paul Blair and Jason Lewis |
| 22-1939 |
| May 5, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 13, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| PETITION for rehearing by panel filed by Appellant Mr. Ronald K. Jordan w/service by USCA8 06/14/2022 [5167561] [22-1939] (MVP) [Entered: 06/14/2022 02:14 PM] |
| MOTION for extension of time to file petition for rehearing until 06/16/2022, filed by Party Mr. Ronald K. Jordan w/service by USCA8 06/08/2022. [5165701] [22-1939] (MVP) [Entered: 06/08/2022 01:55 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER: Granting [ # 5165701-2 ] motion for extension of time to file rehearing filed by Mr. Ronald K. Jordan. Petition for Rehearing due on 06/16/2022 [5165706] [22-1939] (MVP) [Entered: 06/08/2022 02:01 PM] |
| JUDGMENT FILED - The judgment of the district court is summarily affirmed to the extent Appellant seeks to challenge the denial of appointed counsel. In all other respects, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it is premature. Appellants motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied [ # 5160284-2 ]. The full $505 appellate and docketing fees are assessed against the appellant. The court remands the collection of those fees to the district court. DUANE BENTON, BOBBY E. SHEPHERD and JANE KELLY Adp May 2022 [5161644] [22-1939] (MVP) [Entered: 05/26/2022 10:12 AM] |
| CASE SUBMITTED Ad Panel Submission before Judges Duane Benton, Bobby E. Shepherd, Jane Kelly in St. Louis [5161643] [22-1939] (MVP) [Entered: 05/26/2022 10:07 AM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis w/attached affidavit, filed by Appellant Mr. Ronald K. Jordan w/service 05/23/2022. [5160284] [22-1939] (CMH) [Entered: 05/23/2022 04:00 PM] |
| LETTER from Appellant Mr. Ronald K. Jordan regarding clarification of basis of his appeal as it relates to 13th Amendment, w/service 05/23/2022. [5160291] [22-1939] (CMH) [Entered: 05/23/2022 04:05 PM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5154474] [22-1939] (CMH) [Entered: 05/05/2022 10:01 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Memorandum & Order and Order 4/20/2022. [5154477] [22-1939] (CMH) [Entered: 05/05/2022 10:05 AM] |
| 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 this court within 28 days of the date of this order. If appellant does not pay the fee or move for IFP status by 06/02/2022, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [5154488] [22-1939] (CMH) [Entered: 05/05/2022 10:09 AM] |
| 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. [5154490] [22-1939] (CMH) [Entered: 05/05/2022 10:11 AM] |
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.
