Swaim v. Fox, et al
| Edward Kavanaugh Swaim |
| Matt Waltz, Gregory Mermelstein, Bradford Coleman, Missouri State Public Defender and Mary Fox |
| 4:2019cv01879 |
| July 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| Abbie Crites-Leoni |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 12, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 19
ORDER of USCA as to #10 Notice of Appeal filed by Edward Kavanaugh Swaim USCA Appeal #: 19-2697..The district court has determined that Appellant has three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Accordingly, Appellant may not proceed in this appeal without first paying the full appellate docketing fee. Appellant is directed to pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court the appellate docketing fee of $505, or to file a pleading in this court explaining why Appellant is eligible to proceed without pre-payment of the fee. If appellant fails to either pay the fee or respond to this order within 30 days of the date of this order, the appeal will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Compliance is due September 11, 2019.(MRS)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER of USCA as to #10 Notice of Appeal filed by Edward Kavanaugh Swaim USCA Appeal #: 19-2697. If the original file of the United States District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by Eighth Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with Eighth Circuit Local Rule 30A(a)(2), the Clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER, including any documents maintained in paper format or filed under seal, exhibits, CDs, videos, administrative records and state court files. These documents should be submitted within 10 days.(MRS)
|
| Filing 17 Initial Notification from USCA for #10 Notice of Appeal filed by Edward Kavanaugh Swaim USCA Appeal Number: 19-2697(MRS) |
| Filing 16 NOTIFICATION OF APPEAL AND NOA SUPPLEMENT by clerk to USCA regarding #10 Notice of Appeal. Notice of Appeal filed on 7/26/19 by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim. NOTIFICATION TO COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTY: FILE REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT WITH DISTRICT COURT CLERKS OFFICE.(MRS) |
|
Filing 15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: #12 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal filed by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 8/9/19. (MRS)
|
|
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 15. Fri Aug 9 14:16:18 CDT 2019 (Schaefer, Michelle)
|
| Filing 14 Certified Inmate Account Statement by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim. (JMP) |
| Filing 13 SUPPLEMENTAL re #2 DCM Complaint, by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim. (JMP) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis on Appeal by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim. (JMP) |
| Filing 11 Letter to CLERK from EDWARD SWAIM FORWARD FROM APPEAL COURT re:SENTENCING COURT OF APPEAL (JMP) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim. (JMP) |
| Filing 9 Letter to the Court from Swaim re:case filed in Cape Girardeau (MRS) |
| Filing 8 Certified Inmate Account Statement by Plaintiff Edward Kavanaugh Swaim. (KKS) |
| Filing 7 Letter from Clerk sent to pro-se prisoner re:FRAP - all procedures for filing Notice of Appeal (copy of motion to proceed IFP on appeal attached and mailed) (MRS) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to 28U.S.C.1915(g)..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiffrefiling a fully-paid complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this order of dismissal would not betaken in good faith.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 7/9/19. (MRS)
|
|
Filing 5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to appoint counsel (Docket No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice toplaintiff refiling a fully-paid complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 191 S(g). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 7/9/19. (MRS)
|
|
ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 5,6. Tue Jul 9 16:50:18 CDT 2019 (Schaefer, Michelle)
|
| ***Complaint Letter Created. This is to advise you that this office has received and filed your complaint and has assigned it the above-referenced case number. (DJO) |
| Case Opening Notification: All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. Judge Assigned: Honorable Abbie S. Crites-Leoni. (DJO) |
| ***Complaint Letter Processed (see notice of electronic filing for distribution list) Wed Jul 3 11:01:09 CDT 2019 (admin,) |
| Filing 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (CSAW) |
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 Missouri 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.
