Gary Farris v. Adam Bennett, et al
| Gary W. Farris |
| Adam Bennett, in his individual capacity, Augie Martin, in his individual capacity, Olivia McGah, in her individual capacity and Julie Poirier, Sgt. |
| 26-1603 |
| April 1, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 7, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MANDATE ISSUED. [5637677] [26-1603] (NDG) [Entered: 05/07/2026 01:52 PM] |
| JUDGMENT FILED - Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as premature. Mandate shall issue forthwith. LAVENSKI R. SMITH, DUANE BENTON and BOBBY E. SHEPHERD Adp May 2026 [5637669] [26-1603] (NDG) [Entered: 05/07/2026 01:48 PM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of originating court order of 04/21/2026 Granting in forma pauperis and setting payment plan. [5636090] [26-1603] (EDG) [Entered: 05/04/2026 02:04 PM] |
| UPDATED fee status - [Case Number 26-1603: plra] [5636091] [26-1603] (EDG) [Entered: 05/04/2026 02:04 PM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5624463] [26-1603] (CJO) [Entered: 04/01/2026 12:56 PM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Memorandum and Order 03/03/2026, and Order of Partial Dismissal 03/03/2026.[5624467] [26-1603] (CJO) [Entered: 04/01/2026 01:00 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER: for limited remand. This case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of determining the appellant's IFP status and assessment of the docketing fees pursuant to 28 USC Section 1915 as amended by PLRA. [5624470] [26-1603] (CJO) [Entered: 04/01/2026 01:02 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.
