Tom Franks v. R. Johnson, et al
| STANISLAUS SUPERIOR COURT, Judge #8, R. C. JOHNSON, Warden, Warden, Lancaster State Prison and MICHAEL SCHEID, Attorney |
| TOM MARK FRANKS |
| 20-17497 |
| December 28, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Tom Mark Franks motion to extend time. Deficiencies: None [12016696] (NAC) [Entered: 02/25/2021 12:03 PM] |
| Filing 6 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner completed authorization fee order. [11983367] (CKP) [Entered: 01/27/2021 01:42 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received PLRA authorization response from appellant. Dated 01/22/2021. [11983109] (NAC) [Entered: 01/27/2021 11:39 AM] |
| Filing 4 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner fee authorization form sent to prisoner. [11959976] (CKP) [Entered: 01/12/2021 04:55 AM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 01/11/2021. In forma pauperis status should not be revoked and should continue on appeal. [11959053] (NAC) [Entered: 01/11/2021 01:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [11952916] (CKP) [Entered: 01/05/2021 01:17 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Tom Mark Franks opening brief due 02/26/2021. [11946278] (JPD) [Entered: 12/28/2020 02:20 PM] |
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.
