Free USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 70.8 kB
Pages: 1
Date: October 12, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 465 Words, 3,101 Characters
Page Size: 612.72 x 1008 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/22928/58.pdf

Download USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut ( 70.8 kB)


Preview USCA Mandate - District Court of Connecticut
1 OO · ________M_
N N _ Case 3:03-cv-00998-JGM Document 5§_ Filed, 10/11/2005 __ Bilge 1 of 1
1 N O' ’
1 O D.Cenx1.8/M 1-it T
T 1 03-—ov·-99
_ Margolis, M,].
N United States Court of Appeals 1 1
= 1 1__. N Fox me 1
1 1,¤; i SECOND CIRCUIT
12; 1 1 1
_ -At s stated Term of the United States of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thuxgood lvlplrlshall United Ststel<·. Courthouse, Foley Square, in
the C1ty of New York, on the dey of OOTOBER two thousand five, N
1 1 Present: _
gil Hon. Thomas I. Meskill, ` .
Hon. Jon O. Newman, 1 , 4_11_ .... l_1l , 1,
Hon. Reena Rego,
1jri · -1 11 1 1 ;l,1 ~*>#"“`i* K U "-Q ev. ·
N11; Czrcuzt Judges. 1 0 \·;>,;L N
1 :55% CT —— 7 U5 ‘
ii \,s11OO { N
O if; 1 1 1 1
1 Santiago E. Cartagena, O “·*f§igj.,1;12“ _ [
Pismmmppsuss, O O
tg? v. 1 054710-cv ,1, to 2 ?
N Om M O O
Thames Valley Water Bottling Co., Inc., 1 5 m N
O i 1 5 O L ‘_11! i 1 —
Defeudent—Appclle=.‘ `-S2 E12 " OOO- OQ. 1
O 1 is ts @ 1
Appellant, pro ss, moves this Court fo1·infonn:z1p¢1uperis status and for sppoinuiglt of éiqunsel.
Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that Appeilantfs motion for informa ptmpsris lsthtus is - 1
GRAND-ED and the judgment of the district court is VACATED. As a prelimiueiy matter; because 1 i ‘
Appeli¤nti`ileti1-his notice of appeal on the thittieth-dey the entry of the distrie-t1 court order- _,e1 1-O 1
declining to afford him relief under Fed. R. Civ. P; 60(b), his notice of appeal was timely.- See Fed. 1
R,. App. P. 4(u)(4)(A)(vi). Further, because the circumstances of Appellants delay in complying O
{$1 with the dist1·ietcou1t’s order were not "sufticicnt1y extreme" to wammit dismissal, see Spencer v. N
Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1993), the suse is to the district court for further 1
proceedings. In light of this remand, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot. 1
I/?A‘__m____,_V__,__,,_ _ _____ 1 1111111;.- ...... -1 1111 O —--·--~ ----- #1··1··' w *‘‘‘ “‘1 `‘”“‘‘‘ W O
FOR THE COURT: N
Rosezmn B. M_acKechHiG, C1€1`k N
1 as O g O O
OO 1 O sy: sf me 1
$1;. N _ _ Q A O Rjohard A1CH11t31'H, Deputy C1O¤`k N
gi; 1 1 A ‘I‘R\‘.1E GUPYO ·
Mm *ROS&£iI11'1 B . Mec:I · 1-} - 11 O
1 C1§1&'l'11'P1'1 * O O
lpl 3 ZN lnplp l .--wL` Nnnniplllapp i .J;_ Nnnil N- _ U p p 1 DEPUTY CLERK 'O D · QQT 1* 7 2005 an N

pppp OOO ` " i "" O O- ii -O O‘·¥ P? Of l
l-‘·
mmm G, O- -O-O- we — -1+ El -O-O-»OO—-Y

_____ ii 0 `OO ‘ i"’i - O- ·* Oo? O? 1
i O‘‘- ****111
_ 1 _s_s is, --ee ;-sg; <;>e—= ‘;= Ls; if ge; it - $11 L1 i1¥;1LQ1v....