Lisa Washington v. Diana Deleon, et al
| DIANA DELEON, JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as President of the University of California Berkeley, FULL STEAM STAFFING, LLC, UNION CITY CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, JEHOVAH'S WITNESS NATIONAL ORGANIZATION, MINDY OONG, THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, in her official capacity as President of the University of California Berkeley, REBECCA OLSEN, ALLSTATE CORPORATION, MICHAEL BARNES, CAROL T. CHRIST, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the University of California Berkeley, KNOX RICKSEN, LLP, GREGORY D. PIKE, Esquire, DOREEN CARR, TRANSPORTATION BROKERAGE SPECIALISTS, INC., AMANDA M. PLOWMAN, ELIZABETH THRONE, AMAZON, MARY OAKLUND, WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, NORA AUNG, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, NONA WASHINGTON, M. BRETT BURNS, DENTONS US, LLP, JEFFREY V. ROCHA, Esquire and EVEREST LEAP, LLC |
| LISA WASHINGTON |
| 19-17353 |
| November 21, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 5, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 MANDATE ISSUED. (AWT, BGS and JBO) [11846682] (CW) [Entered: 10/05/2020 07:35 AM] |
| Filing 10 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, BARRY G. SILVERMAN and JOHN B. OWENS) The district court certified that this appeal is frivolous and revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). On December 30, 2019, this court ordered appellant to explain in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (court shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious). Upon a review of the record and the response to the December 30, 2019 order, we conclude this appeal is frivolous. We therefore deny appellants motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. [ # 7 ]) and dismiss this appeal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). All other pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [11821109] (OC) [Entered: 09/11/2020 03:28 PM] |
| Filing 9 Supreme Court Case Info Case number: 19-7483 Filed on: 01/22/2020 Cert Petition Action 1: Denied, 03/30/2020 [11648911] (RR) [Entered: 04/01/2020 02:12 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Lisa Washington statement that appeal should go forward. Served on 01/28/2020. [11581417] (RL) [Entered: 01/31/2020 03:29 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Lisa Washington FORM 4 motion and affidavit for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 01/27/2020. [11581409] (RL) [Entered: 01/31/2020 03:27 PM] |
| Filing 6 Supreme Court Case Info Case number: 19-7483 Filed on: 01/22/2020 Cert Petition Action 1: Pending [11580129] (RR) [Entered: 01/30/2020 04:31 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has determined the appeal 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. 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. [11546106] (CKP) [Entered: 12/30/2019 10:00 AM] |
| Filing 4 Received copy of District Court order filed on 12/20/2019. On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a referral notice directing this Court to determine whether Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status should continue for her appeal. Although the Court cannot say Plaintiff took the appeal in bad faith, it does conclude that Plaintiffs appeal is frivolous. Therefore, it revokes Plaintiffs in forma pauperis status.[11543972] (RR) [Entered: 12/26/2019 09:31 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [11537112] (CKP) [Entered: 12/18/2019 12:23 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Lisa Washington motion to dismiss party from case (document formatted as letter). Deficiencies: None. Served on 12/05/2019. [11524385] (RL) [Entered: 12/06/2019 04:08 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Lisa Washington opening brief due 01/21/2020. [11506603] (JMR) [Entered: 11/21/2019 09:16 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.
