Craig Brittain, et al v. Twitter, Inc.
| TWITTER, INC., a California corporation |
| BRITTAIN FOR U.S. SENATE, a principal campaign committee and CRAIG R. BRITTAIN, an individual and U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona in in the 2018 Federal Elections |
| 19-16622 |
| August 19, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Streamlined request [6] by Appellant Mr. Craig R. Brittain to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. See 9th Cir. R. 27-11. [11436658] (BG) [Entered: 09/19/2019 07:39 AM] |
| Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Craig R. Brittain Motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. Date of service: 09/19/2019. [11436601] [19-16622] (Brittain, Craig) [Entered: 09/19/2019 02:35 AM] |
| Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Craig R. Brittain Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Date of service: 09/19/2019. [11436600] [19-16622] (Brittain, Craig) [Entered: 09/19/2019 02:31 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Mr. Craig R. Brittain. New requested due date is 10/18/2019. [11436599] [19-16622] (Brittain, Craig) [Entered: 09/19/2019 02:24 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and is frivolous 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, appellee 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. [11410498] (CKP) [Entered: 08/26/2019 02:23 PM] |
| Filing 4 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 19-16622: Due] ). [11409844] (CO) [Entered: 08/26/2019 10:44 AM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 08/23/2019 ORDER. Order revoking in forma pauperis status. [11408595] (RL) [Entered: 08/23/2019 01:28 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. [11405792] (CKP) [Entered: 08/21/2019 03:12 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANTS. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Craig R. Brittain and Brittain For U.S. Senate opening brief due 10/15/2019. Appellee Twitter, Inc. answering brief due 11/14/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11401376] (HC) [Entered: 08/19/2019 09:57 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.
| Search for this case: Craig Brittain, et al v. Twitter, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: TWITTER, INC., a California corporation | |
| Represented By: | Jean-Jacques Cabou Esquire |
| Represented By: | Julie E. Schwartz |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: BRITTAIN FOR U.S. SENATE, a principal campaign committee | |
| Represented By: | Brittain For U.S. Senate |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: CRAIG R. BRITTAIN, an individual and U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona in in the 2018 Federal Elections | |
| Represented By: | Craig R. Brittain |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
