Meyers v. US Department of Treasury et al
| David Meyers |
| KCMO Internal Revenue Service and US Department of Treasury |
| 4:2021cv00048 |
| January 25, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Howard F Sachs |
| Prisoner Pro Se |
| Mandamus & Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1361 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS: 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. (CLERK'S NOTE: All documents pertaining to this case are on CM/ECF. Nothing will be sent to the Court of Appeals.) (Davies, Cindy)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER of US COURT OF APPEALS: 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 April 1, 2021. (Davies, Cindy)
|
| Filing 8 TRANSMISSION of Notice of Appeal Supplement to US Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit via electronic mail. Related document #6 Notice of Appeal. (Willis, Kathy) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: The Court construes Petitioner's notice of appeal as containing a motion for leave to proceed as a pauper and denies it pursuant to 1915(g). The Clerk of the Court shall send this case to the Court of Appeals. Signed on 3/2/2021 by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. (Willis, Kathy)
|
| USCA Case Number from 8th Circuit is 21-1476 for #6 Notice of Appeal filed by David Meyers. (Davies, Cindy) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order (Doc. #4 ) filed by David Meyers. (Willis, Kathy) |
| Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: Petitioner is denied leave to proceed as a pauper, and this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). If Petitioner wants to reassert his claims, he must first pay filing and administrative fees of $402.00. (Willis, Kathy) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: Petitioner is denied leave to proceed as a pauper, and this case is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). If Petitioner wants to reassert his claims, he must first pay filing and administrative fees of $402.00. Signed on 1/27/2021 by District Judge Howard F. Sachs. (Willis, Kathy)
|
| Filing 2 IFP FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT filed by David Meyers. (Davies, Cindy) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Mandamus filed by David Meyers.(Davies, Cindy) |
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 Western 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.
