In re: J.E. Pendleton
| In re: J.E. Pendleton |
| 25-5225 |
| June 16, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| PER CURIAM ORDER [2132805] filed granting the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ # 2120949-2 ]; dismissing as moot in part and denying in part the petition for writ of mandamus [ # 2120948-2 ]. Before Judges: Henderson, Childs and Pan. [25-5225] [Entered: 08/29/2025 05:04 PM] |
| US CIVIL ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CASE docketed. [25-5225] [Entered: 06/16/2025 03:29 PM] |
| EMERGENCY PETITION [2120948] for writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner J.E. Pendleton [Service Date: 06/16/2025 by CM/ECF NDA] Length Certification: 2 pages. [25-5225] [Entered: 06/16/2025 03:30 PM] |
| MOTION [2120949] to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by J.E. Pendleton (Service Date: 06/16/2025 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 7 pages. [25-5225] [Entered: 06/16/2025 03:33 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.
| Search for this case: In re: J.E. Pendleton | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: In re: J.E. Pendleton | |
| Represented By: | J.E. Pendleton |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
