Akers v. Flannigan et al
| Montgomery Carl Akers |
| Katherine Siereveld, Sarah Canty, Does Dental Department Employees, Sam A. Crow, Katheryn Vratil, Does 1-20 (1), Does 1-20 (2), Kim I. Flannigan, Dan Sproul, J. Phil Gilbert, J. Cononer and Eric Melgren |
| 5:2020cv03311 |
| December 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Sam A Crow |
| Teresa J James |
| Holly L Teeter |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 APPEAL DOCKETED in 10CCA on 2/3/2021 and assigned Appeal No. 21-3019 re #10 Notice of Appeal filed by Montgomery Carl Akers. (jal) |
| Filing 11 PRELIMINARY RECORD ON APPEAL transmitted to 10CCA re #10 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: #1 Preliminary Packet) (jal) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #7 Order by Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (jal) |
| APPEAL FEE STATUS: filing fee not paid re: Notice of Appeal - Final Judgment #10 on behalf of Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY ENTRY-NO DOCUMENT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TRANSACTION) (jal) |
| Filing 9 JUDGMENT regarding Order #8 dismissing matter without prejudice. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 01/21/21. Mailed to pro se party Montgomery Carl Akers by regular mail. (smnd) |
Filing 8
ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 01/21/21. Mailed to pro se party Montgomery Carl Akers by regular mail. (smnd)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Doc. #5 ) is denied. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 01/15/21. Mailed to pro se party Montgomery Carl Akers by regular mail. (smnd)
|
| Filing 6 SUPPLEMENT to #5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #4 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (smnd) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #4 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (smnd) |
| MOTION REFERRAL to Magistrate Judge REMOVED as to: #5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #4 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The motion will be resolved by the District Judge. (ct) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. #2 ) is denied. Plaintiff is granted until January 15, 2021, to submit the $402.00 filing fee. The failure to submit the fee by that date will result in the dismissal of this matter without prejudice and without additional prior notice. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 12/23/2020. Mailed to pro se party Montgomery Carl Akers by regular mail. (jal)
|
| Filing 3 MINUTE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE: Case reassigned to District Judge Holly L. Teeter and Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James for all further proceedings. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow no longer assigned to case. Entered by Deputy Clerk on 12/22/20. Mailed to pro se party Montgomery Carl Akers by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (smnd) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers. (jal) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (jal) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
