Francis Grandinetti, II v. CoreCivic, et al
| STATE OF ARIZONA, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, STATE OF TENNESSEE, STATE OF HAWAII, CORECIVIC and DAVID SWENSON |
| FRANCIS ANTHONY GRANDINETTI II |
| 19-15070 |
| January 11, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Francis Anthony Grandinetti, II letter dated 02/13/2019 re: "Petitioner does not wish to be with CoreCivic..." Paper filing deficiency: None. [11203198] (QDL) [Entered: 02/21/2019 03:15 PM] |
| Filing 4 Received copy of District Court order filed on 02/12/2019. ORDER: Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. [10]) to the Court's January 18, 2019 Order is denied. [11187697] (QDL) [Entered: 02/12/2019 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Francis Anthony Grandinetti, II inmate request form and miscellaneous documents. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11176693] (QDL) [Entered: 02/01/2019 03:49 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received copy of District Court order filed on 01/18/2019 denying Plaintiff's Motion seeking a 30-day extension of time to appeal. [11159022] (QDL) [Entered: 01/18/2019 11:50 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. This appeal is subject to a pre-filing review order in case number 06-80108. The appeal will be reviewed by the Court to determine whether it will be allowed to proceed. No briefing schedule will be set until/unless the Court determines that the appeal should be allowed to proceed. [11150720] (RT) [Entered: 01/11/2019 03:40 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
