David Simpkins, et al v. State of Tennessee, et al
| David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins |
| State of Tennessee, Denise Andre, Judge, official capacity only and Stacey Edmonson, District Attorney, official capacity only |
| 26-7061 |
| April 30, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 25, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MOTION [2180555] for relief filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins (Service Date: 06/24/2026 by US Mail) Length Certification: 2,679 words. [26-7061] [Entered: 06/26/2026 09:38 AM] |
| NOTICE [2180556] filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins [Service Date: 06/24/2026 ] [26-7061] [Entered: 06/26/2026 09:41 AM] |
| NOTICE [2180557] filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins [Service Date: 06/24/2026 ] [26-7061] [Entered: 06/26/2026 09:41 AM] |
| CLERK'S ORDER [2178433] filed considering motion to permit pro se electronic filing [ # 2177122-2 ]; ORDERED that each appellant be permitted to participate as an ECF filer in the courts Case Management/Electronic Case Files system so long as they are not represented by an attorney [26-7061] [Entered: 06/12/2026 08:33 AM] |
| MOTION [2177110] for leave to file oversized brief filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins (Service Date: 06/02/2026 by US Mail) Length Certification: 5 pages. [26-7061]--[Edited 06/05/2026 by LMM] [Entered: 06/05/2026 02:02 PM] |
| MOTION [2177111] for leave to file brief filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins (Service Date: 06/02/2026 by US Mail) Length Certification: 2 pages. [26-7061] [Entered: 06/05/2026 02:04 PM] |
| APPELLANT BRIEF [2177112] lodged by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins [Service Date: 06/02/2026 ] Length of Brief: 13,129 words. [26-7061] [Entered: 06/05/2026 02:06 PM] |
| MOTION [2177117] to stay underlying order pending appeal filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins (Service Date: 06/02/2026 by US Mail) Length Certification: 15 pages. [26-7061] [Entered: 06/05/2026 02:15 PM] |
| MOTION [2177122] to permit pro se electronic filing status filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins (Service Date: 06/05/2026 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 252 words. [26-7061] [Entered: 06/05/2026 02:21 PM] |
| NOTICE [2176222] received from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for payment of docketing fee [Case Number 26-7061: Fee Paid] [26-7061] [Entered: 06/02/2026 08:21 AM] |
| RESPONSE [2173045] to order [ # 2171395-4 ] filed by David M. Simpkins (Service Date: 05/13/2026 by CM/ECF NDA) Length Certification: 11 pages. [26-7061] [Entered: 05/13/2026 08:49 AM] |
| CLERK'S ORDER [2171389] filed directing party to file motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis or payment of docketing fee. APPELLANT payment of docketing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis in district court due 06/01/2026, Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution [26-7061] [Entered: 05/01/2026 09:29 AM] |
| CLERK'S ORDER [2171395] filed to show cause regarding dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction. Response to Order due 06/01/2026. The response may not exceed the length limitations established in the order., Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution [26-7061] [Entered: 05/01/2026 09:37 AM] |
| PRIVATE CIVIL CASE docketed. [26-7061] [Entered: 05/01/2026 09:25 AM] |
| NOTICE OF APPEAL [2171386] seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:26-cv-00304-CJN filed by David M. Simpkins and Sally E. Simpkins. Appeal assigned USCA Case Number: 26-7061. [26-7061] [Entered: 05/01/2026 09:26 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.
