Emrit v. Attorney Kara Pratt of Hillsboro, Texas et al
| Ronald Satish Emrit |
| Board of Disciplinary Appeals, Attorney Kara Pratt of Hillsboro, Texas, Texas Bar, Texas Supreme Court, Chief Disciplinary Counsel and BODA |
| 5:2023cv00088 |
| March 17, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Claria Horn Boom |
| P SO |
| Assault Libel & Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 USCA Case Number 23-5309 Case Manager Robin Baker for #8 Notice of Appeal filed by Ronald Satish Emrit. (KM) |
Filing 9
ORDER: re #8 : It is ORDERED as follows:1. The Clerk's Office is directed to send the plaintiff a Sixth Circuit Form 4;2. Within 30 days from this order date, ptf must pay $505 appellate filing fee or move for leave to proceed in form pauperis;3. The Clerk's Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 04/11/2023.(KCF)cc: COR, 6CAAand Ronald Satish Emrit by US Mail
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to #7 Judgment, by Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se. (SHORT RECORD MAILED). cc: COR, 6CCA, Ronald Satish Emrit via US Mail. (Attachments: #1 Envelope dated 4-4-23)(KCF) |
| Filing 7 JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff's present pleading #1 is DISMISSED without prejudice as improvidently filed. 2. This action is STRICKEN from the docket. 3. This is a FINAL and APPEALABLE Judgment, and there is no just cause for delay. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 3/20/2023.(STC)cc: COR and Ronald Satish Emrit by US Mail |
|
Filing 6
ORDER: 1. The Plaintiffs present pleading #1 is DISMISSED without prejudice as improvidently filed. 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Claria Horn Boom on 3/20/2023. (STC)cc: COR
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se.Motions referred to P SO. (KCF) |
|
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER re: Disclosure of Contact Information: 1. pro se litigants must provide current telephone number, residential address, & if different, mailing address. 2. pro se litigants must provide written notice of change of residential address, & if different, mailing address. 3. Clerk file copy of Order in all non-prisoner pro se actions. Failure to provide required information or change of address may result in appropriate sanctions.. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 05/06/2016.(KCF)cc: CORand Ronald Satish Emrit by US Mail
|
| Filing 3 IMPORTANT NOTICE to Pro Se Filer: Information relating to pro se filings and F.R.Civ.P. 5.2 requiring personal identifiers be partially redacted from documents filed with the court. #Click here for more information on the rules. It is the sole responsibility of counsel and the parties to comply with the rules requiring redaction of personal data identifiers.cc: pro se filer via U.S. Mail (Attachments: #1 Attachment Sample Caption)(KCF) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT (NO PROCESS REQUESTED)., filed by Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Envelope (unknown date)(KCF) |
| ***FILE SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: #1 Complaint, ***MOTION SUBMITTED TO CHAMBERS of PSO for review: re #5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se. (KCF) |
| Conflict Check run. (KCF) |
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
