Richard Carmichael v. William Gittere, et al
Defendant: JAMES G. COX, Director of Prisons, WILLIAM GITTERE, Assoc Warden, E. K. MCDANIEL, Deputy Director and RENEE BAKER, Warden
Plaintiff / Appellant: RICHARD LEE CARMICHAEL
Case Number: 19-16742
Filed: September 5, 2019
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 9, 2019 Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): On September 10, 2019, this court issued an order staying appellate proceedings pending disposition of the pending motion for reconsideration in the district court. On September 12, 2019, the district court denied the motion. The stay order filed September 10, 2019, is lifted and this appeal shall proceed. A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant has not paid the docketing and filing fees for this appeal. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall: (1) file a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a completed Form 4 affidavit; or (2) pay $505.00 to the district court as the docketing and filing fees for this appeal and provide proof of payment to this court. The Clerk shall serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. The motion to extend time to file opening brief [ # 4 ] is granted in part. The opening brief is due January 6, 2020. Because there is no appearance by appellee, briefing will be completed upon the filing of the opening brief. 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. [11459321] (CKP) [Entered: 10/09/2019 12:03 PM]
September 30, 2019 Filing 4 Filed Appellant Richard Lee Carmichael motion to extend time to file appellant opening brief and notice of change of address Deficiencies: None. Served on 09/25/2019. [11450507]--[Edited: address updated. 10/02/2019 by SLM] (JFF) [Entered: 10/01/2019 03:28 PM]
September 25, 2019 Filing 3 Mail returned on 09/23/2019 addressed to Richard Lee Carmichael, re: 09/10/2019 order [ # 2 ]. Returned envelope notes: return to sender, parole, refused. Resending to: case files; appellant was paroled per NV inmate database, no forwarding address found. [11443794] (LA) [Entered: 09/25/2019 03:04 PM]
September 10, 2019 Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): The courts records reflect that the notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of a timely-filed motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), and that motion is still pending in the district court. The September 5, 2019 notice of appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, proceedings in this court are held in abeyance pending the district courts resolution of the pending September 5, 2019 motion. See Leader Natl Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444, 445 (9th Cir. 1994). Within 14 days after the district courts ruling on the pending motion, appellant shall file a written notice in this court: (1) informing this court of the district courts ruling; and (2) stating whether appellant intends to prosecute this appeal. To appeal the district courts ruling on the post-judgment motion, appellant must file an amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court. [11426766] (CKP) [Entered: 09/10/2019 12:36 PM]
September 5, 2019 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Richard Lee Carmichael opening brief due 11/04/2019. (No Appellees, no answering brief deadlines set) [11422433] (HC) [Entered: 09/05/2019 02:18 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.

Search for this case: Richard Carmichael v. William Gittere, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JAMES G. COX, Director of Prisons
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 ]
Defendant: WILLIAM GITTERE, Assoc Warden
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 ]
Defendant: E. K. MCDANIEL, Deputy Director
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 ]
Defendant: RENEE BAKER, Warden
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: RICHARD LEE CARMICHAEL
Represented By: Richard Lee Carmichael
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.


Why Is My Information Online?