LIT COMMENTARY
If you’re a prisoner or a “non-prisoner”, the Fifth Circuit is not a place you want to have to come to for your appeal(s) if you’re looking for a fair and impartial review of your case(s).
That stated, the ‘random’ assignment of a 3-panel should hopefully give you small comfort that out of the recently reduced number of available judges, totaling 26 active and senior status, from 27 since the passing of 99 year old Judge Reavley this week, you’d maybe have a 3-panel which would look at the case in a human context as well.
Well, we have to tell ya Schwarzer, you lucked out on this ‘random’ panel.
Let’s take stock; Pat Higginbotham, the “there’s no free lunch and no free house” judge; Gregg Costa, cooked Robert Allen Stanford alive with 110 year sentence on what we have been advised by parties close to the case – it was very suspect evidence – and which led to this Costa’s express rise to the Fifth Circuit as a thank you; and finally, the original Judge Edith ‘Diva’ Jones who managed to phone enough friends to get out of a serious ethics charge herself as a result of her appearance at a Federalist Society conference which resulted in a very public ethics complaint against her.
There’s been 2 appeals by this Prisoner
After looking at the current order from the 5th (Case No. 19-41011, Dec. 3, 2020 and back-tracing to the lower court order (see below), we checked to see if there was any prior, related cases. There was, Schwarzer had filed a ‘class action’ complaint in 2018. This was dismissed by Judge Hoyt and appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the same panel presiding. It was remanded, in part. (Case No. 19-40019, June 25, 2020).
The complaint dismissed by S.D. Tex. Judge Hoyt
The order by the 5th Circuit panel seems to sum up the general arguments. That said, we know only too well at LIT, that many arguments, especially pro se arguments, can be taken out (discounted or excluded) or amended to infer a different meaning by judges and courts. It’s criminal. The courts and judges may squeal foul on this claim, but its an undeniable accusation -because it is based on actual cases and facts.
We call it “white-out” (removal of key arguments) or wordsmithing when the courts “gloss” the orders and opinions (a term taken from former 5th Circuit champion Judge Gerald Tjoflat, now 11th Circuit (after split)).
Now we’re not saying that this happened in this case, but at the same time, we’re not going to vouch for the content of any orders from appellate and lower courts in the American judicial system without an in-depth review.
The 3-Strikes for Frivolous Filings
We’ve noted in lower court orders by Judge Hoyt – which led to both appeals – each time the final comment is the 3-strike register. Yet the 5th Circuit clearly ruled in the first appeal that it was not a frivolous filing.
The Mailbox Rule for Prisoners
LIT read the summary of the lower court’s order and what’s clear is that Schwarzer believes his mail and rights to property are being tampered with and has spawned these two appeals. Clearly he’s pretty convinced. Schwarzer’s a prisoner and relies on the prison to send his mail.
However, the date of his complaint is not the date of posting, so the 5th circuit decide ‘we will have to ask the lower court to check the records and/or with the prison to see if the date of deposit into the prison mailbox matches the date of his complaint’, – the 30th of the month – which would fall within the allotted appeal time and the 5th Circuit has jurisdiction to review.
That’s farcical when the court has inherent powers to see the facts; the prison is being accused of tampering and as such could easily delay the date of posting the complaint.
Obviously, this is setup for dismissal and no doubt a 3-strike by the 3-panel for lack of jurisdiction will deem Schwarzer as a frivolous filer and his rights revoked at S.D. Tex.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 3, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
Mark Cliff Schwarzer,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Dale Wainwright, Chairman of the Board of Criminal Justice; Robert G. Beard, Jr., Former Warden of Stevenson Unit; Pamela R. Mendez-Banda, Unit Mailroom Employee; Bryan Collier, Executive Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Jennifer Smith, DRC Program Supervisor,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:18-CV-34 (Judge Kenneth Hoyt)
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:*
No. 19-41011
Mark Cliff Schwarzer, Texas prisoner # 1433741, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter judgment.
However, the issues Schwarzer raises on appeal concern the dismissal of his § 1983 action rather than the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion.
As a threshold matter, this court “must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional prerequisite. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017).
Schwarzer’s Rule 59(e) motion was entered on the district court’s docket on November 4, 2019, which was after the October 30, 2019, deadline for filing the motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
However, under the prison mailbox rule, Schwarzer’s Rule 59(e) motion is deemed filed on the date it was placed in the prison’s mail system. See Stoot v. Cain, 570 F.3d 669, 671 (5th Cir. 2009).
The motion was dated October 30, 2019, but the record does not reveal when Schwarzer deposited it in the mail.
It is therefore unclear whether his Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed.
As a result, on the present record, this court cannot determine whether it has jurisdiction to review the underlying dismissal of Schwarzer’s § 1983 complaint. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand for the limited purpose of determining when Schwarzer placed his Rule 59(e) motion in the prison mail system. See Thompson v. Montgomery, 853 F.2d 287, 288 (5th Cir. 1988).
APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE; LIMITED REMAND.
I have earlier written about the ethics complaint filed against Judge Edith Jones. Judge Jones, who I have only met once, is a tough and “conservative” judge who sits on the Fifth Circuit. She formerly served as the Chief Judge of that court. She is very bright, and very opinionated. Her writing and her speaking styles can be blunt. Frankly, she is far too right-wing for my tastes.
Background
The student-run chapter of the Federalist Society at the University of Pennsylvania Law School invited Judge Jones to speak about the death penalty. The Federalist Society chapter advertised the event within the law school and to the public as a discussion of “federal death penalty review through the perspective of a federal judge.” Judge Jones delivered the lecture, entitled “Federal Death Penalty Review with Judge Edith Jones (5th Cir.),” on February 20, 2013. She spoke for about 45 minutes and then answered questions. There was no recording of her talk or the question and answer session.
Various individuals and public interest groups filed a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against the judge. The Complaint primarily centered on alleged misconduct arising from remarks Judge Jones made at the lecture on the death penalty at the University of Pennsylvania Law School on February 20, 2013. The complaining parties did not like what Judge Jones said, so they filed the ethics complaint against her.
The Complaint grouped Judge Jones’ contested comments into the following categories: (1) “Comments on Race”; (2) “Comments on the Intellectually Disabled”; (3) “Comments on [Claims] of Innocence”; (4) “Comments on Foreign Nationals”; (5) “Discussion of Individual Cases”; and (6) “Discussion of Religion as a Justification for the Death Penalty.” It also alleges that the judge: (7) improperly criticized the U.S. Department of Justice; (8) “disparaged” the Supreme Court; and (9) delivered her remarks in an inappropriate tone. In these respects, the Complaint maintains, the judge’s lecture violated 28 U.S.C. § 351 and Code of Conduct Canons 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Before I first blogged about this matter more than a year ago, I spent a time examining the complaint and the four affidavits that a newspaper had obtained and reprinted. After that, I wrote:
While its only my opinion, even if one takes the facts stated in the affidavits as generally true, the content of Judge Jones’ remarks at the law school seem to me to be a very weak basis for claiming that she violated the Code of Conduct. Indeed, I find it more than a little frightening that a serious but plainspoken and outspoken judge like Jones can be forced to defend herself for the content of a law school speech on the death penalty that offended some of the audience members.
Richard G. Kopf, The complaint against Judge Edith Jones for her death penalty speech, Hercules and the umpire (June 5, 2013 (asterisks (footnotes) omitted).
I also noted that: “The rambling complaint does an extremely poor job of tracking the affidavits. That is, the complaint appears to grossly overstate the specific facts recounted in the affidavits.”
At the request of the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, this matter was submitted to Chief Justice Roberts for transfer to another Circuit Judicial Council. The Chief Justice referred the complaint to the Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit. In turn, a “Special Committee” was appointed consisting of D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Garland, Circuit Judge Griffith, and Chief Judge Roberts of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On August 6, 2013, the Committee appointed Jeffrey Bellin, Associate Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, as Special Counsel to the Committee to investigate the Complaint’s factual allegations.
The Special Committee issued a 71-page single spaced opinion recommending that the entire complaint be dismissed. The Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit ( GARLAND, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; KAVANAUGH, SRINIVASAN, MILLETT, and PILLARD, Circuit Judges; ROBERTS, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; A. JACKSON, CONTRERAS, and K. JACKSON, District Judges) followed the recommendations, and the complaint was unanimously dismissed on August 12, 2014.
We now know the identity of the complaining parties as they have “appealed” (called a “Petition for Review” under the relevant rules) and they have made their appeal public. The complaining parties are: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), by Luis Roberto Vera, Jr.; NAACP – Austin Chapter, by Nelson E. Linder; National Bar Association, Dallas Affiliate – J.L. Turner Legal Association, by Tatiana Alexander; Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), by James C. Harrington; La Union del Pueblo Entero (LUPE,) by Juanita Valdez-Cox; Charles W. Wolfram, Professor Emeritus, Cornell Law School; Author, Modern Legal Ethics; Renato Ramirez; Professor Robert P. Schuwerk, Co-Author, Handbook of Texas Lawyer and Judicial Ethics; Susan Martyn, Distinguished Professor of Law & Values, University of Toledo College of Law; Ronald Minkoff, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz; Past President, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers; Ellen Yaroshefsky, Clinical Professor and Director, Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law, Cardozo School of Law.
Their “appeal” will go before the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See here (near the bottom of the page, click on Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings and read Rules 21 and 22).
The Order of dismissal, the Report of the Special Committee, the “Appeal” and the supporting affidavits for the “appeal” are reproduced as follows: dismissal; appeal; and affidavits. These are PDF documents, and one must click on the link to view (by download) the document or documents of interest. Many thanks to Howard Bashman at How Appealing for collecting these materials. An alternative method of accessing these documents is to go to Howard’s post which may be found here (“”Federal panel dismisses complaint against Houston judge”).
My initial reactions
I may post more about the decision and the appeal. But for now, here are my five initial reactions:
- The work of the Special Committee and Professor Jeffrey Bellin makes me proud to be a federal judge. The clarity, tone, thoroughness and objectivity which is evident in the Report of the Special Committee is remarkable.
- Having spent six years as a member of the Codes of Conduct Committee, it is my opinion that the Special Committee’s report reflects a sophisticated understanding of the Code of Conduct For United States Judges.
- In my opinion, the essential allegations of the complaint lack a credible factual basis. With the aid of Professor Bellin’s searching investigation, the Report of the Special Committee, in restrained terms, explains why that is so.
- I fear that complaints like this one will chill, and may even be intended to chill, judicial speech concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, particularly when the judge does not share the jurisprudential or ideological views of the listeners, and despite the fact that federal judges are expressly encouraged under the Code to speak about the law and how to improve it. Id. Commentary to Canon 4.
- As distinguished from my fears expressed in the preceding paragraph, the Report of the Special Committee does a skillful job of explaining why controversial speech by a federal judge in the context of a talk on the law does not violate the Code.
Conclusion
I especially urge all federal judges and federal practitioners to read the Report of the Special Committee. It would be good also to read the complainants’ “appeal” and the supporting affidavits, although frankly those documents leave me entirely unpersuaded. Finally, the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit, and particularly the members of the Special Committee, deserve high praise for teaching us a lot about federal judicial ethics in the real world.
The Who, the Why and the Title of this Blog
The Who
Kopf, Richard George
E-Mail: Hercfriends@gmail.com
Born 1946 in Toledo, OH
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on April 7, 1992, to a seat vacated by Warren K. Urbom. Confirmed by the Senate on May 21, 1992, and received commission on May 26, 1992. Served as chief judge, 1999-2004. Assumed senior status on December 1, 2011.
U.S. Magistrate, U.S. District Court, District of Nebraska, 1987-1992
Education:
Kearney State College (now University of Nebraska at Kearney), B.A., 1969
University of Nebraska College of Law, J.D., 1972
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Donald Ross, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1972-1974
Private practice, Lexington, Nebraska, 1974-1986
Counsel, State of Nebraska, impeachment of Attorney General Paul Douglas, 1984
The Why
About seven years ago, a bright law student asked me about blogging and that exchange became part of a blog. See Ian Best, Judge Richard Kopf (D. Nebraska): Legal Blogs Will Fill the Practicality Gap,
The student asked me whether I would consider blogging. I answered this way: “If I were to write my own blog, it would have something to do with what it means to be a federal trial judge on a day-to-day basis. I am not sure, however, that I want to reveal that much about myself.”
I am now on senior status, and with that change in status (plus advancing age) my reticence to blog has lessened. I think I have something worth writing about.
I am very interested in the role of judges and particularly the role of federal trial judges. So, that is what I will write about in this blog.
As an aside, even though I am a senior judge, I still have an active caseload. Thus, I must not comment upon pending or impending matters. I will strive hard to live up to that restriction. Fair warning: nothing I write about in this blog should be taken as a comment upon those forbidden areas.
The Title
I hope the title evokes an image of two poles. On the north, we have the late great Ronald Dworkin’s all knowing judge, Hercules. On the south, we have Chief Justice Roberts’ formulation of the judge as umpire.
I am interested in knowing (1) which pole is the better and (2) whether there is a longitude and latitude between those poles that locates the proper role of a federal trial judge.
Richard G. Kopf
E-Mail: Hercfriends@gmail.com
Schwarzer’s Earlier (First) Case and Appeal
Schwarzer v. Wainwright, CIVIL ACTION V-18-0029 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2018) [REVERSED]
Note: A Different case # 0029.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-40019
Summary Calendar
FILED
June 25, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
MARK CLIFF SCHWARZER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
DALE WAINWRIGHT; LORIE DAVIS; KELVIN SCOTT; PATRICIA CHAPA; ROBERT G. BEARD, JR.; PAMELA C. BAROS; TRAVIS L. WHITE,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:18-CV-29 (Judge Kenneth Hoyt)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Mark Cliff Schwarzer, Texas prisoner # 1433741, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several prison officials related to the confiscation of property by a correctional officer. He filed the suit as a purported class action on behalf of Texas Department of Criminal Justice
inmates. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and it denied the request for class certification.
Schwarzer has moved to supplement the record with exhibits attached to his appellate brief. “An appellate court may not consider new evidence furnished for the first time on appeal and may not consider facts which were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling.” Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
We review the dismissal as frivolous pursuant to § 1915A for abuse of discretion. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint is frivolous and lacks an arguable basis in law if it is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Schwarzer first challenges the dismissal of his claim based on deprivation of property.
He contends that prison policies allow correctional officers to take the property of inmates without cause. Relatedly, renewing a claim raised in his complaint, but not expressly addressed by the district court, Schwarzer asserts that the primary issue in his case is a violation of substantive due process.
Under the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, the deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest caused by a state actor’s random, unauthorized conduct does not give rise to a § 1983 procedural due process claim unless the state fails to provide an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115 (1990); see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).
However, “post deprivation remedies,” such as state tort suits, “do not satisfy due process where a deprivation of property is caused by conduct pursuant to established state procedure, rather than random and unauthorized action.” Hudson, 468 U.S. at 532.
In such a case, a § 1983 claim is appropriate. See Augustine v. Doe, 740 F.2d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1984).
Conduct is not “random and unauthorized” for purposes of the Parratt/Hudson doctrine if the state “delegated to [the defendants] the power and authority to effect the very deprivation complained of.” Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 138.
Schwarzer alleged in his complaint that his Step 1 and Step 2 grievances were denied based on a determination that the seizure of his property was pursuant to policy. He attached the relevant grievance forms to his complaint, and the responses to these grievances by prison officials support Schwarzer’s factual allegations about the stated justification for denying his grievances.
Because the factual allegations of the complaint and the grievance forms indicate that the confiscation of Schwarzer’s property was not a random, unauthorized act by a state employee, we conclude that the district court’s dismissal as frivolous, pursuant to the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, of Schwarzer’s claim based on the alleged confiscation of his property was an abuse of discretion. See Allen v. Thomas, 388 F.3d 147, 148-49 (5th Cir. 2004); Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 32 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995).
Therefore, we vacate that portion of the district court’s order dismissing Schwarzer’s claim based on the deprivation of property and remand for further proceedings. See Allen, 388 F.3d at 149. We express no opinion as to the merits of any such claim.
Otherwise, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Schwarzer’s claim based on the denial of a meaningful prison grievance system was properly dismissed, as a prisoner “does not have a federally protected liberty interest in having . . . grievances resolved to his satisfaction.” Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005).
Further, Schwarzer cannot demonstrate that prisoners have a constitutional right to a grievance system. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995).
To the extent that Schwarzer raised a claim based on the failure to follow prison regulations, the claim was properly dismissed, as mere violations of prison rules or regulations do not alone rise to the level of constitutional violations and, therefore, such claims are not actionable under § 1983. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Finally, Schwarzer has not challenged the denial of his request for class certification. The issue is therefore deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
Hopefully one of the next new batch of federal judicial nominees in the new presidency, this lawyer, Jared Westbroek, gets LIT’s vote. https://t.co/Rt7bSXXRHi @FedSoc @JCNSeverino @judicialnetwork @glennbeck @SCOTUSblog @GACourts @JudgeDillard @TheJusticeDept @senatemajldr https://t.co/KTs0QKyaK2 pic.twitter.com/HvbpnEhMjN
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) December 4, 2020
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Victoria)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:18-cv-00034
Schwarzer v. Wainwright et al Assigned to: Judge Kenneth M Hoyt Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Date Filed: 06/04/2018 Date Terminated: 10/02/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
Plaintiff | ||
Mark Cliff Schwarzer | represented by | Mark Cliff Schwarzer #1433741 Duncan Unit 1502 South First Street Diboll, TX 75941 PRO SE |
V. | ||
Defendant | ||
Dale Wainwright Chairman of the Board of Criminal Justice |
||
Defendant | ||
Robert G. Beard, Jr. Former Warden of Stevenson Unit |
||
Defendant | ||
Pamela R Mendez-Banda Unit Mailroom Employee |
||
Defendant | ||
Bryan Collier Executive Director of TDCJ |
||
Defendant | ||
Jennifer Smith DRC Program Supervisor |
||
Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
---|---|---|
06/04/2018 | 1 | Prisoner Civil Rights COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400-Not Paid) filed by Mark Cliff Schwarzer. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Envelope)(ltesch, 6) (Entered: 06/05/2018) |
06/04/2018 | 2 | MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Mark Cliff Schwarzer. Motion Docket Date 6/25/2018. (ltesch, 6) (Entered: 06/05/2018) |
06/04/2018 | 3 | Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement filed by Mark Cliff Schwarzer. (ltesch, 6) (Entered: 06/05/2018) |
06/05/2018 | 4 | NOTICE to Pro Se Litigant of Case Opening. Party notified, filed. (ltesch, 6) (Entered: 06/05/2018) |
06/07/2018 | 5 | ORDER for Initial Partial Filing Fee as to Mark Cliff Schwarzer; Granting 2 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2018) |
07/10/2018 | Partial Filing fee: $51.67, receipt number VIC002005, filed. (TeresaTuch, 6) (Entered: 07/10/2018) | |
07/16/2018 | Partial Filing fee: $350, receipt number VIC002010, filed. (TeresaTuch, 6) (Entered: 07/16/2018) | |
08/07/2018 | Partial Filing fee: $50, receipt number VIC002021, filed. (TeresaTuch, 6) (Entered: 08/07/2018) | |
08/09/2018 | 6 | Letter from Mark Schwarzer, filed. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Entered: 08/10/2018) |
09/06/2018 | 7 | Letter from Mark Schwarzer re: IFP, filed. (dperez, 3) (Entered: 09/10/2018) |
09/11/2018 | Partial Filing fee: $120.00, receipt number VIC002035, filed. (TeresaTuch, 6) (Entered: 09/12/2018) | |
04/25/2019 | 8 | ORDER FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT as to Mark Cliff Schwarzer. More Definite Statement due by 6/28/2019.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(kpicota, 4) (Entered: 04/25/2019) |
05/06/2019 | 9 | Letter from Mark Schwarzer re: Order for MDS, filed. (AmandaZepeda, 2) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/6/2019: # 1 Envelope) (AmandaZepeda, 2). (Entered: 05/06/2019) |
06/18/2019 | 10 | ORDER Granting 9 Letter Motion for Clarification. Theplaintiff must respond to this Court’s 8 Order for More Definite Statement by 7/10/2019. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 06/18/2019) |
06/27/2019 | 11 | MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT by Mark Cliff Schwarzer, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Step 1 Offender Grievance Form, # 2 Exhibit Step 2 Offender Grievance Form, # 3 Affidavit of Patricia Schwarzer, # 4 Envelope)(CarrieSmith, 6) (Entered: 06/27/2019) |
08/05/2019 | 12 | NOTICE of Change of Address by Mark Cliff Schwarzer, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 08/05/2019) |
09/06/2019 | 13 | Letter from Mark Schwarzer re: Requesting copy of Complaint and Exhibits, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (BrittanyFoil, 6) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/9/2019: # 2 Clerk’s response) (CarrieDickie, 6). (Entered: 09/06/2019) |
10/02/2019 | 14 | MEMORANDUM ON DISMISSAL Email sent to Manager of Three Strikes List. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2019) |
10/02/2019 | 15 | FINAL JUDGMENT. Case terminated on 10/2/2019(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(gkelner, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2019) |
10/08/2019 | 16 | Copy Request from Plaintiff Mark Schwarzer re: 11-1, 11-2. Customer was previously contacted by mail. Sent copies by mail as payment of copy fees received, filed. (CarrieDickie, 6) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/8/2019: # 1 Envelope) (CarrieDickie, 6). (Entered: 10/08/2019) |
10/08/2019 | Confirmation of receipt of payment from Mark Schwarzer in the amount of $ 0.40 re: Document(s) Sent. Receipt date: 10/8/2019. Receipt number VIC002216. Purpose Description: Copies. (BrittanyFoil, 6) (Entered: 10/08/2019) | |
11/04/2019 | 17 | Plaintiff’s MOTION to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) by Mark Cliff Schwarzer, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit – TDCJ Board Policy, # 2 Envelope)(CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 11/06/2019) |
11/07/2019 | 18 | ORDER denying 17 Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M Hoyt) Parties notified.(chorace) (Entered: 11/07/2019) |
12/05/2019 | 19 | NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 18 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment by Mark Cliff Schwarzer, filed. ($505.00 Filing Fee- Not paid) (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CarrieDickie, 6) Modified on 1/3/2020 (CarrieDickie, 6). (Entered: 12/05/2019) |
12/10/2019 | 20 | Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 19 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 12/10/2019) |
12/10/2019 | Appeal Review Notes re: 19 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. The appeal filing fee has not been paid, and appellant is a pro se litigant.No hearings were held in the case – no transcripts. Number of DKT-13 Forms expected: 1, filed.(CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 12/10/2019) | |
12/17/2019 | Notice of Assignment of USCA No. 19-41011 re: 19 Notice of Appeal, filed.(CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 12/17/2019) | |
12/23/2019 | 21 | Notice of Non-Compliance. Appellant has failed to: Pay the notice of appeal filing fee. Submit the DKT13 transcript order form. Parties notified, filed. (CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 12/23/2019) |
01/02/2020 | Appeal Filing fee: $505, receipt number VIC2238, filed. (BrittanyFoil, 6) (Entered: 01/02/2020) | |
01/08/2020 | 22 | Letter from Mark Schwarzer re: 21 Notice of Non-Compliance in regard to filing fee and transcript order form, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 01/08/2020) |
01/14/2020 | Electronic record on appeal certified to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals re: 19 Notice of Appeal, USCA No. 19-41011.(CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 01/14/2020) | |
02/10/2020 | 23 | NOTICE by Plaintiff noting transcripts not needed re: 19 Notice of Appeal, by Mark Cliff Schwarzer, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(CarrieDickie, 6) (Entered: 02/12/2020) |
This. #txlege https://t.co/XW8rpfXonr @RepColinAllred @JodeyArrington @RepBrianBabin @RepKevinBrady @JudgeJohnCarter @JoaquinCastrotx @RepSpeier @RepCloudTX @ConawayTX11 @JohnCornyn @RepDanCrenshaw @CuellarCampaign @RepFletcher @RepKayGranger @tedcruz @bakerbotts @TexasTribune https://t.co/myD6cWmX7j pic.twitter.com/5iQi23wVIy
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) December 4, 2020