Noe Raquinio v. Hawaii Police Department, et al
| KYLE HIRAYAMA, Officer, Vice Section Area II, HAWAII POLICE DEPARTMENT, MARCO SEGOBIA, Officer, Section Vice 2 Area, EDWARD LEWIS, Officer, Section Vice 2 Area; K9 Handler, JEREMY LEWIS, Detective, Section Vice 2 Area and CITY OF KAILUA KONA, HAWAII, Police Department |
| NOE KIM RAQUINIO |
| 19-15849 |
| April 24, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 06/21/2019. [11340781] [19-15849] (Raquinio, Noe) [Entered: 06/21/2019 01:47 PM] |
| Filing 13 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio Correspondence: Excerpts of records. Date of service: 06/20/2019. [11339392] [19-15849] --[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 6/20/2019 by TYL] (Raquinio, Noe) [Entered: 06/20/2019 02:00 PM] |
| Filing 12 Received 1 copy of excerpts of record filed by Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio. Major deficiencies: opening brief not yet filed. [11337962] (SML) [Entered: 06/19/2019 04:25 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio Correspondence: Notice regarding Opening brief. Date of service: 06/07/2019. [11323116] [19-15849]--[COURT UPDATE: Edited docket text to reflect content of filing. 06/07/2019 by RY] (Raquinio, Noe) [Entered: 06/07/2019 09:44 AM] |
| Filing 10 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio. Date of service: 06/01/2019. [11321353] [19-15849] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected brief. 6/13/2019 by TYL] (Raquinio, Noe) [Entered: 06/05/2019 07:42 PM] |
| Filing 9 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 05/31/2019. [11315894] [19-15849] (Raquinio, Noe) [Entered: 05/31/2019 03:08 PM] |
| Filing 8 Received original and 3 copies of Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio opening brief (Informal: No) 16 pages. Served on 05/18/2019. Major deficiencies: motions pending, opening brief already received. Notified appellant. [11310763] (SML) [Entered: 05/28/2019 03:26 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio motion to appoint counsel and motion for statement that appeal should go forward. Deficiencies: None. [11295895][COURT UPDATE: NEw Documents Attached, resent NDA,--[Edited 05/13/2019 by BY] (JFF) [Entered: 05/13/2019 04:40 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/03/2019. [11295883] (JFF) [Entered: 05/13/2019 04:34 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Mr. Noe Kim Raquinio opening brief (Informal: Yes) 6 pages. Served on 05/04/2019. Major deficiencies: OSC pending. [11295664] (SML) [Entered: 05/13/2019 03:24 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellees may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [11285832] (CKP) [Entered: 05/03/2019 10:47 AM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 04/29/2019 to proceed in forma pauperis denied. [11282690] (JFF) [Entered: 04/30/2019 04:41 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [11278482] (CKP) [Entered: 04/26/2019 10:41 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Noe Kim Raquinio opening brief due 06/24/2019. Appellees City of Kailua Kona, Hawaii, Hawaii Police Department, Kyle Hirayama, Edward Lewis, Jeremy Lewis and Marco Segobia answering brief due 07/24/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11275702] (RT) [Entered: 04/24/2019 02:05 PM] |
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.
