Benny Johnson v. Joseph Satterfield, et al
| Benny Johnson |
| Joseph Z. Satterfield, Court Judge, Division I, Robert N. Mayer, Circuit Court Judge, Honorable John C. Spielman, Circuit Court Judge, Nicholas D. Jain, Prosecutor, Russell David Oliver, Prosecutor, Tim G. Pulley, Missouri Highway Patrol, Jeremy Jones, Criminalist Supervisor, Todd Watson, Aaron Grainger, Josh Roberts, John T. McMullan, Attorney, James Smith, Justin Claibourn, Deputy, Nicole Green, Administrator Dunklin County Justice Center, Ashley Graham, Nurse, Dewayne Rhody, Medical Lab Technician, Kelli Asher, June Robinson, Tayhlar Santana, Brant Bristow, Jesse Curtis, Brian Wicker, Bob Holder and Carl Heifner |
| 25-1341 |
| February 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 18, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER: Granting [ # 5497416-2 ] motion for extension of time to file rehearing filed by Appellant Benny Johnson. Petition for Rehearing due on 04/09/2025. [5497419] [25-1341] (HAG) [Entered: 03/18/2025 04:20 PM] |
| MOTION for extension of time to file petition for rehearing, filed by Appellant Benny Johnson w/service by USCA8 03/18/2025. [5497416] [25-1341] (HAG) [Entered: 03/18/2025 04:17 PM] |
| JUDGMENT FILED - Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant's [ # 5491857-2 ] motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is denied as moot. RAYMOND W. GRUENDER, BOBBY E. SHEPHERD and JANE KELLY Adp Mar 2025 [5494857] [25-1341] (HAG) [Entered: 03/12/2025 10:37 AM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis w/attached affidavit, Request to Proceed in forma pauperis and Amended Petition, filed by Party Benny Johnson, w/service 03/04/2025. [5491857] [25-1341] (CJO) [Entered: 03/04/2025 08:57 AM] |
| Supporting Document filed by Appellant Benny Johnson, regarding the originating court document notice of appeal [ # 5487638-2 ], w/service 03/04/2025. [5491865] [25-1341] (CJO) [Entered: 03/04/2025 09:03 AM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5487633] [25-1341] (CJO) [Entered: 02/20/2025 11:53 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Opinion, Memorandum and Order 11/22/2024, Order of Dismissal 11/22/2024, and Opinion, Memorandum and Order 02/14/2025. [5487638] [25-1341] (CJO) [Entered: 02/20/2025 11:59 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER: The $605 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 03/20/2025, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [5487644] [25-1341] (CJO) [Entered: 02/20/2025 12:01 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. [5487652] [25-1341] (CJO) [Entered: 02/20/2025 12:09 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.
