James McCurdy v. B. Deal, et al
| MICHAEL FELDER, BICK, M.D., J. CLARK KELSON, E. TORRES, CCHCS, Receiver, D. LEIGHTON, M.D., LARSEN, C/O LVN, GREENE, CSW, P. LENOIR, M.D., AF SHIN, J. DEPOVIC, M.D., GU, ITRIAGO, M.D., MO, M.D., HUBBARD, Sgt., LEDESMA, C.O., M. BOBBALA, GRIMSLEY, C.O., LESNIAK, Cpt., F. ALVAREZ, M.D., SCOTT KERNAN, N. SAUKHLA, M.D., MAUREEN MCLEAN, CEO, BALLABA, R.N., A. DEVERS, M.D., B.A. DHILLON, M.D., MATHIS, M.D., PENN, C.O., M. PLOESSER, M.H., DITOMAS, M.D., CORTEZ, C.O., L. PRATT, M.D., SECRETARY OF CDCR, D. WU, M.D., J. LEWIS, Deputy Director, D. MENDIVIL, R.N., WANG, M.D., J. MOLINA, LVN, KAHLON, M.D., M. MAYS, N.P., E. TOOTELL, M.D., M. PALEY, RN, SOLTANIAN, Dr., A. SMITH, LVN, BOZORGMERH, M.D., MARIA V. RIVERO, M.D., BALBINA, R.N., CLINGERMAN, C.O., DOUST, M.D., AQUILERA, M.D., I. MATHOS, N.P., ALONSO, C.O., THOMAS, N.P., HAILE, M.D., J. WIELAND, M.D., BAUTISTA, C.O., M. MARCHAK, M.D., ESPINOZA, Lt., E. ASPACIO, LVN, F. KO, M.D., D. JACOBSEN, CEO at Pelican Bay State Prison, MENDOZA, C.O., CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, PONATH, M.D., N. MALOKKA, JANICE LEE, M.D., F. RADING, M.D., RAMIREZ, C.O., CASE, Sgt., DUTTA, M.D., ARYA, A. ADAMS and VIDUYA, C.O. |
| B. DEAL, M.D. |
| JAMES CLAYTON MCCURDY |
| 19-17108 |
| October 23, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Attorney Zewugeberhan Desta in 19-17108 substituted by Attorney Alan D. Romero in 19-17108 [11523261] (CW) [Entered: 12/06/2019 06:54 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Alan D. Romero (California Department of Justice 1300 I Street, Ste. 125, Sacramento, CA 95814) for Appellee B. Deal, M.D.. Substitution for Attorney Zewugeberhan Desta for Appellee B. Deal, M.D.. Date of service: 12/05/2019. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [11522811] [19-17108] (Romero, Alan) [Entered: 12/05/2019 03:04 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant James Clayton McCurdy motion to stay further action. Deficiencies: None. Served on 11/20/2019. [11512455] (CW) [Entered: 11/26/2019 09:06 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): On October 29, 2019, this court issued an order staying appellate proceedings pending disposition of the October 3, 2019 motion in the district court. On October 31, 2019, the district court denied the motion. The stay order filed October 29, 2019, is lifted and this appeal shall proceed. A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, and that such permission has not been revoked to date. Consequently, appellants forma pauperis status continues in this court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1) and (2), however, appellant must pay the full amount of the filing and docketing fees for this appeal when funds are available in appellants account. Consequently, within 21 days after the filing date of this order, appellant shall complete and file with this court the enclosed authorization form, which directs the prison officials at appellants institution to assess, collect, and forward to the court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal on a monthly basis whenever funds exist in appellants trust fund account. These fees will continue to be collected regardless of the date or manner of disposition of this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2) and (e)(2). Appellant is not responsible for payment when the funds in appellants prison trust account total less than $10, but payments must resume when additional deposits are made or funds are otherwise available. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal may be dismissed by the Clerk. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The previously established briefing schedule remains in effect. The Clerk shall serve this order and a prison authorization form on appellant. [11507342] (CKP) [Entered: 11/21/2019 01:30 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 10/31/2019 denying mtn to alter or amend judgment, denying mtn to strike appeal as unnecessary. [11503273] (CW) [Entered: 11/19/2019 07:11 AM] |
| 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 October 18, 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 October 3, 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. [11481411] (CKP) [Entered: 10/29/2019 11:43 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant James Clayton McCurdy opening brief due 12/17/2019. Appellee B. Deal answering brief due 01/16/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11474344] (HC) [Entered: 10/23/2019 10:31 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.
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.
