Leatherman v. AT&T Inc. et al
Case Summary
The plaintiff, Leatherman, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is currently ongoing in the district court. The motion is likely in response to financial difficulties or other circumstances that prevent the plaintiff from paying the filing fee.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
Key Issues
- • Federal jurisdiction and procedural posture
- • Current docket activity and next procedural step
- • Pending motions, orders, and near-term docket movement
- • Claims pleaded in the complaint and early case posture
Docket Snapshot
Court
E.D. Tex.
Eastern District of Texas · 5th Circuit · TX
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
2:23-cv-00486 ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. et al v. AT&T Inc. et al
Other · Apr 24, 2026
Coverage
2 articles
2 sources tracked
Participants
2 Plaintiffs, 1 Related Organization
4 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
What the record shows
This case is tied to Eastern District of Texas, a federal district court in TX.
The newest docket activity we have is a other dated April 24, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes 9:26-cv-80472 Leatherman, 2:23-cv-00486 ASUS Technology Licensing Inc and others.
Press monitoring has found 2 related articles from 2 distinct sources.
The Story So Far
Leatherman v. AT&T Inc. et al is an active civil matter in Eastern District of Texas under docket 26-cv-80472.
The main identified plaintiff or petitioner is 2:23-cv-00486 ASUS Technology Licensing Inc and 9:26-cv-80472 Leatherman. The case is currently organized around Federal jurisdiction and procedural posture, Current docket activity and next procedural step, Pending motions, orders, and near-term docket movement, Claims pleaded in the complaint and early case posture.
The plaintiff, Leatherman, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The case is currently ongoing in the district court. The motion is likely in response to financial difficulties or other circumstances that prevent the plaintiff from paying the filing fee.
On April 24, 2026, the docket recorded a other: AT&T Inc. was named as a defendant in a separate lawsuit, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v. AT&T Inc., case number 2:23-cv-00486. This lawsuit is unrelated to the Leatherman v. case.
The details of the ASUS lawsuit are not specified. On April 24, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted Leatherman's request to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing him to continue his lawsuit against AT&T Inc. without paying the required filing fee.
This decision is significant because it enables Leatherman to pursue his case despite financial.
The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.
About This Court
Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.) is a federal district court in the 5th Circuit, TX.
Case Timeline
2 events2:23-cv-00486 ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. et al v. AT&T Inc. et al
AT&T Inc. was named as a defendant in a separate lawsuit, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v. AT&T Inc., case number 2:23-cv-00486. This lawsuit is unrelated to the Leatherman v. case. The details of the ASUS lawsuit are not specified.
9:26-cv-80472 Leatherman v. AT&T Inc. et al
The court granted Leatherman's request to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing him to continue his lawsuit against AT&T Inc. without paying the required filing fee. This decision is significant because it enables Leatherman to pursue his case despite financial constraints. The court's ruling will allow the lawsuit to move forward.
Press Coverage
9:26-cv-80472 Leatherman v. AT&T Inc. et al
Proceed In Forma Pauperis ( 3
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
2 outlets · 2 articles
Timeline events
2 records on file
Last updated
10 hours, 39 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.