Kenneth Friedman v. Nathaniel Woods, et al
| DOE, Defendant 2, KEITH OWNSBY, L. WING, Psychologist, ISIDRO BACA, Warden, B. KYLES, I. M. HARRIS, Chief Psychiatrist at NNCC, BARBARA NOVAK, Psychiatric Nurse and DOE, Defendant 1 |
| SHELLY CONLIN, SAC, BRADLY KYLE, SAC, DANIELLE RICHARDS, LAUREN WING, LISA WALSH, SAC, ROMEO ARANAS, SAC, WILIAM PENCE and NATHANIEL WOODS, Chief Psychologist at NNCC |
| KENNETH A. FRIEDMAN |
| 19-16136 |
| June 4, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| KENNETH FRIEDMAN V. NATHANIEL WOODS |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Kenneth A. Friedman letter dated 06/13/2019 re: payment. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11350784] (JFF) [Entered: 07/01/2019 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed original and 7 copies of Appellant Kenneth A. Friedman (Informal: Yes) opening brief of 6 pages. Served on 06/14/2019. [11344541] (SML) [Entered: 06/25/2019 05:11 PM] |
| Filing 4 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 06/20/2019. [11340687] (RT) [Entered: 06/21/2019 01:20 PM] |
| Filing 3 Check number 005744 in the amount of $505.00, forwarded to district court. (See Case Files) [11334362] (JR) [Entered: 06/17/2019 03:01 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): The appeal filed June 3, 2019 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 shall apply. The briefing schedule shall be established as follows: appellants opening brief is due July 5, 2019; appellees answering brief is due August 5, 2019; and appellants optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. The appeal and any motions pending at the time briefing is completed shall be referred to the next available motions panel for disposition. A review of this courts docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the district court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk shall serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. The filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will automatically stay the briefing schedule under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-11. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal will be dismissed automatically by the Clerk under Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a)(3). Any request for an extension of time to file a brief must be made by written motion under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). Failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [11323148] (CKP) [Entered: 06/07/2019 10:04 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Kenneth A. Friedman opening brief due 08/02/2019. Appellees Romeo Aranas, Shelly Conlin, Bradly Kyle, Wiliam Pence, Danielle Richards, Lisa Walsh, Lauren Wing and Nathaniel Woods answering brief due 09/03/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11319474] (JMR) [Entered: 06/04/2019 02:40 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.
