Peter McDaniels v. Belinda Stewart, et al
LABOR ORGANZIATIONS, CI FOOD PLANT PRODUCTION/STORAGE, JOE WILLIAMSON, CLARA CURL, SCOTT FRAKES, JAY JACKSON, DOC/SCCC GRIEVANCE PROGRAM, SCCC FOOD SERVICES, JACKSON, TOM FITHIAN, MCTARSNEY, DOC CARE REVIEW COMMITTEE, Pat Doe(s) 1-9, PAT DOE, Practitioner, Dieticians, 1-5, Dieticians 4 - 10 Consultants 11, 12 and 13, Policy Makers 37-38, Supervisors/Administrators 40, 41 and 42, SCCC Kitchen Supervisor, SCCC Kitchen, DAN PACHOLKE, DOC/SCCC RELIGIOUS PROGRAM, BERNARD WARNER, JOHN DOE, Lt., BRIAN KING, EARL X. WRIGHT and DALE CALDWELL |
BRENT CARNEY, State Dietician, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS STATE OF WASHINGTON, RHONDA WILLIAMSON, substitutes for Defendant Joe Williamson, PAM PERDUE, Assistant Food Service Manager, SCCC, BELINDA STEWART, Religious Programs Manager, BRAD SIMPSON, Food Service Manager, DOC, SARAH SMITH, Medical Administrator, SCCC, ROBERT HERZOG, DOC Assistant Secretary/Deputy Director/Designee, JOSHUA SENDAWULA, Chaplain Administrator, SCCC, LT. MCCARTY, KEVIN BOVENKAMP, Medical Administrator, DOC, DAN VAN OGLE, (former) Associate Superintendant, SCCC, DANIELLE ARMBRUSTER, Director of Correctional Industries, NORMAN GOODENOUGH, Medical Administrator, SCCC, RICHARD ROBERTS, JIM PARKER, Assist. Director for Food, CI, G. STEVEN HAMMOND, Chief Medical Officer, DOC, PATRICK R. GLEBE, (former) Superintendant, SCCC and ROBERT WEBER, Medical Administrator, DOC |
PETER J. MCDANIELS |
19-35245 |
March 29, 2019 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
PETER MCDANIELS V. BELINDA STEWART |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 Filed Appellant Peter J. McDaniels response to order to show cause. Served on 05/06/2019. [11295925] (JFF) [Entered: 05/13/2019 04:48 PM] |
Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Appellees Danielle Armbruster, Kevin Bovenkamp, Brent Carney, Department of Corrections State of Washington, Patrick R. Glebe, Norman Goodenough, G. Steven Hammond, Robert Herzog, Lt. McCarty, Dan Van Ogle, Jim Parker, Pam Perdue, Richard Roberts, Joshua Sendawula, Brad Simpson, Sarah Smith, Belinda Stewart, Robert Weber and Rhonda Williamson reply to response to order to show cause dated 04/02/2019. Date of service: 05/01/2019. [11283630] [19-35245] (Dibble, Candie) [Entered: 05/01/2019 02:18 PM] |
Filing 6 Filed Appellant Peter J. McDaniels statement that appeal should go forward. [11277905] (JFF) [Entered: 04/25/2019 04:32 PM] |
Filing 5 Filed Appellant Peter J. McDaniels motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/04/2019. [11277895] (JFF) [Entered: 04/25/2019 04:26 PM] |
Filing 4 Filed Appellant Peter J. McDaniels motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/21/2019. [11277678] (JFF) [Entered: 04/25/2019 03:21 PM] |
Filing 3 Filed Appellant Peter J. McDaniels letter dated 03/29/2019 re: Notice of appeal and request documents. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11254351] (JFF) [Entered: 04/05/2019 11:38 AM] |
Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status for purposes of appeal. 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 the court dismisses the appeal as frivolous, this appeal may be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellees 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. [11250117] (CKP) [Entered: 04/02/2019 12:43 PM] |
Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Peter J. McDaniels opening brief due 05/28/2019. Appellees Danielle Armbruster, Kevin Bovenkamp, Brent Carney, Department of Corrections State of Washington, Patrick R. Glebe, Norman Goodenough, G. Steven Hammond, Robert Herzog, Lt. McCarty, Dan Van Ogle, Jim Parker, Pam Perdue, Richard Roberts, Joshua Sendawula, Brad Simpson, Sarah Smith, Belinda Stewart, Robert Weber and Rhonda Williamson answering brief due 06/26/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11246418] (JPD) [Entered: 03/29/2019 10:55 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.