David Jackson-Mackay v. Vonnie Cotant, et al
| Austin D. Anderson and Preston Wisenbaker |
| John and Jane Does 1-10 |
| David A. Jackson-Mackay |
| Vonnie Cotant, Jail Administrator, Scotts Bluff County Detention Center, Michael Dedinsky, Deputy Jail Administrator, Scotts Bluff County Detention Center, Julie White, Administrative Sergeant, Scotts Bluff County Detention Center, Val Rivas, Mail Room Supervisor, Scotts Bluff County Detention Center, Kari Wolf, Mail Room Clerk, Jeremiah Bretthauer, Inmate Services Liaison, Scotts Bluff County Detention Center, Scotts Bluff County Adult Detention Center, County of Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, Scotts Bluff County Sheriff's Department, Mark Overman, Sheriff, Scotts Bluff County Detention Center and Scotts Bluff County Commissioners |
| 22-2230 |
| June 10, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Re-mailed correspondence - case opening letter, [ # 5166450-2 ], clerk order pay docketing fee, [ # 5166459-2 ], clerk order case proceeding on of (need file), [ # 5166461-2 ],mailed to Mr. David Jackson-Mackay on 6/10/2022 was returned on 7/12/2022. Envelope states name and number do not match. It has been confirmed that this is the correct inmate number and inmate location address. Maill will be re-sent. [22-2230] (CMH) [Entered: 07/15/2022 03:15 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER:The Court's order dated 6/10/2022, which was regarding the pending fee matter, was returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable to Appellant. On the Court's own motion, the deadline to resolve the pending fee in this matter is hereby extended. 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 08/12/2022, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [5177898] [22-2230] (CMH) [Entered: 07/15/2022 04:13 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. [5166461] [22-2230] (CMH) [Entered: 06/10/2022 09:35 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 07/08/2022, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [5166459] [22-2230] (CMH) [Entered: 06/10/2022 09:33 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Memorandum & Orders 3/28/22, 4/27/2022 and 6/7/2022. [5166456] [22-2230] (CMH) [Entered: 06/10/2022 09:32 AM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5166450] [22-2230] (CMH) [Entered: 06/10/2022 09:24 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.
