Jimmy Stanley v. Drew County Detention Center, et al
| Jimmy Dewayne Stanley |
| Drew County Detention Center, Jackson, Jail Worker, Drew County Detention and Does, Jail Doctor, Jail Workers, and Day and Night Shift Workers, Drew County Detention Center Facility Center |
| 25-2926 |
| October 1, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 19, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MANDATE ISSUED. [5609738] [25-2926] (JES) [Entered: 02/19/2026 11:37 AM] |
| JUDGMENT FILED - Denying motions [ # 5588463-2 ] and [ # 5574647-2 ] to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Jimmy Dewayne Stanley. The appeal is dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or to demonstrate eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). DISMISSED JANE KELLY, L. STEVEN GRASZ and JONATHAN A. KOBES Adp Jan 2026 [5600068] [25-2926] (JES) [Entered: 01/23/2026 08:54 AM] |
| CASE SUBMITTED Ad Panel Submission before Judges Jane Kelly, L. Steven Grasz, Jonathan A. Kobes in St. Louis [5600057] [25-2926] (JES) [Entered: 01/23/2026 08:48 AM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, filed by Appellant Jimmy Dewayne Stanley w/service 12/15/2025. [5588463] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 12/15/2025 04:29 PM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, filed by Appellant Jimmy Dewayne Stanley w/service 11/03/2025. [5574647] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 11/04/2025 09:24 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of originating court order of 10/09/2025 denying motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, [5566638] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 10/10/2025 08:45 AM] |
| CLERK ORDER:This court has previously determined that Appellant has three strikes under 28 U.S.C Section 1915(g). Accordingly, Appellant may not proceed in this appeal without first paying the full appellate docketing fee. Appellant is directed to either 1) pay to the district court the appellate docketing fee of $605, or 2) to file a pleading in this court explaining why Appellant is eligible under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) to proceed without pre-payment of the fee, and to submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. If appellant fails to either pay the fee or respond to this order with the required pleading and motion within 30 days of the date of this order, the appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Compliance is due 11/10/2025 [5566639] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 10/10/2025 08:45 AM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5563079] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 10/01/2025 09:00 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Findings and Recommendations dated 9/4/2025, Order dated 9/16/2025, Judgment dated 9/16/2025 [5563086] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 10/01/2025 09:07 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. [5563087] [25-2926] (RDB) [Entered: 10/01/2025 09:07 AM] |
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.
