Robin Jackson v. County of Sacramento Departmen, et al
| CHAMBERS, WALLACH and COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES |
| ROBIN E. JACKSON and ROBIN ELAINE JACKSON |
| 19-16575 |
| August 9, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| ROBIN JACKSON V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO DEPT. HHS |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 1, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LBS): Appellants motion [ # 2 ] for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due November 4, 2019. The answering brief is due December 4, 2019. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11450473] (LBS) [Entered: 10/01/2019 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Ms. Robin Elaine Jackson Motion to extend time to file an Opening brief until 11/04/2019. Date of service: 09/30/2019. [11448354] [19-16575]--[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect content of filing. 09/30/2019 by SLM] (Jackson, Robin) [Entered: 09/30/2019 11:47 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Robin E. Jackson opening brief due 10/07/2019. Appellees Chambers, County of Sacramento Department of Health and Human Services and Wallach answering brief due 11/06/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11393138] (JPD) [Entered: 08/09/2019 04:24 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.
