Joseph Gabrill v. USDC-CAC
| JOSEPH GABRILL |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES |
| SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA and In re: JOSEPH GABRILL |
| 08-71000 |
| March 11, 2008 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2008. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Received letter from the Supreme Court dated 12/01/2008 regarding petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing in USSC number 07-10771 is denied. (TB) [Entered: 12/09/2008 09:41 AM] |
| Filing 5 The petition for writ of certiorari was denied on 10/06/2008. Supreme Court number 07-10771. (RR) [Entered: 10/14/2008 05:10 PM] |
| Filing 4 Received notice from the Supreme Court: petition for certiorari filed on 04/17/2008 and placed on the docket 5/7/08. Supreme Court Number 07-10771. (RR) [Entered: 05/13/2008 01:33 PM] |
Filing 2
Order filed (THOMAS G. NELSON, A. WALLACE TASHIMA and JAY S. BYBEE) Accordingly, this third emergency petition for writ of mandamus, dated March 7, 2008 and filed on February 10, 2008, is denied. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket. [Denied;Procedural termination after other judicial action; ] (AF) [Entered: 03/11/2008 01:55 PM]
|
| Filing 1 FILEDFAXED AS EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. (MOATT) (CP) [Entered: 03/11/2008 10:03 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
