Louis Holger v. City of Kotzebue, et al
| JOSEPH LINGER, TIMOTHY MARK BURGESS, MARLIN L. RITZMAN, AMERICAN BRITISH ACCREDITED REGISTRY ASSOCIATION, INC., BARACK OBAMA, SHAWN GILLMAN, ERIC SWISHER, RACHEL AHERONS, THOMAS SLEASE, JONAS M. WALKER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CITY OF KOTZEBUE, ROBERT HUEN, KOTZEBUE REGIONAL JAIL, GARY GEORGE COLBATH, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NICOLE NORMA STOOPS, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, JOHN A. EARTHMAN, BRYON SCHRODER, KOTZEBUE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AARON J. MICHAELS, DONALD J. TRUMP, JOE MILLS-BAIN, THOMAS NELSON, NORMAN HUGHES and PAUL ANTHONY ROETMAN |
| LOUIS HOLGER |
| 19-35367 |
| May 1, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Filed Appellant Louis Holger statement that appeal should go forward. Served on 06/10/2019. [11335836] (QDL) [Entered: 06/18/2019 01:31 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Louis Holger supplemental motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/19/2019. [11308974] (QDL) [Entered: 05/24/2019 02:23 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Louis Holger motion for appointment of counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/14/2019. [11303514] (QDL) [Entered: 05/20/2019 04:23 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Louis Holger motion for injunctive relief. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/14/2019. [11303512] (QDL) [Entered: 05/20/2019 04:21 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SZ): A review of the record reflects that this appeal may be frivolous. 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 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). The briefing schedule for this appeal remains stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss this appeal or statement that the appeal should go forward. [11301611] (JBS) [Entered: 05/17/2019 02:03 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Louis Holger letter dated 03/07/2019 re: request for copy of rules. Paper filing deficiency: None. (Sent appellant copy of rules) [11295703] (QDL) [Entered: 05/13/2019 03:37 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Louis Holger motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/07/2019. (Sent appellant copy of filed motion per request) [11295699] (QDL) [Entered: 05/13/2019 03:35 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CKP): Order to show cause docket fee due [11290487] (CKP) [Entered: 05/08/2019 10:41 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Louis Holger opening brief due 06/25/2019. [11283094] (JPD) [Entered: 05/01/2019 10:11 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
