Lyle Coultas v. Carroll Tichenor, et al
Defendant / Appellee: STEVEN PAYNE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Oregon State Crime Laboratory Detective, OREGON STATE POLICE, YAMHILL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and CARROLL TICHENOR, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Yamhill County Prosecutor
Plaintiff / Appellant: LYLE MARK COULTAS
Case Number: 19-35421
Filed: May 14, 2019
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
June 10, 2020 LYLE COULTAS V. CARROLL TICHENOR

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 8, 2019 Filing 12 Filed Appellant Lyle Mark Coultas motion to void judgments for fraud on the court. Deficiencies: None. Served on 07/05/2019. [11358485] (RR) [Entered: 07/09/2019 03:27 PM]
July 8, 2019 Filing 11 Attorney Denise Gale Fjordbeck in 19-35421 substituted by Attorney Judy C. Lucas in 19-35421 [11357018] (RR) [Entered: 07/08/2019 03:59 PM]
July 8, 2019 Filing 10 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Judy C. Lucas (Oregon Department of Justice - Appellate Division, 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301) for Appellees Oregon State Police, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor. Substitution for Attorney Ms. Denise Gale Fjordbeck for Appellees Oregon State Police, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor. Date of service: 07/08/2019. (Party previously proceeding without counsel: No) [11356727] [19-35421] (Lucas, Judy) [Entered: 07/08/2019 02:27 PM]
June 27, 2019 Filing 9 Filed original and 8 copies of Appellant Lyle Mark Coultas (Informal: Yes) opening brief of 12 pages. Served on 06/24/2019. [11349178] (LA) [Entered: 06/28/2019 04:17 PM]
June 17, 2019 Filing 8 Received Appellant Lyle Mark Coultas notice regarding proof of payment for filing fees. [11335688] (RR) [Entered: 06/18/2019 12:19 PM]
June 14, 2019 Filing 7 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 06/14/2019. [11332727] (RT) [Entered: 06/14/2019 05:23 PM]
June 5, 2019 Filing 6 Attorney Andrew Hallman in 19-35421 substituted by Attorney Denise Gale Fjordbeck in 19-35421 [11320387] (RR) [Entered: 06/05/2019 11:01 AM]
June 5, 2019 Filing 5 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Denise G. Fjordbeck for Appellees Oregon State Police, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor. Substitution for Attorney Andrew Hallman for Appellees Oregon State Police, Steven Payne and Carroll Tichenor. Date of service: 06/05/2019. (Party previously proceeding without counsel: No) [11320362] [19-35421] (Fjordbeck, Denise) [Entered: 06/05/2019 10:50 AM]
June 4, 2019 Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): On May 15, 2019, this court issued an order staying appellate proceedings pending disposition of the motion for reconsideration in the district court. On May 22, 2019, the district court denied the motion. The stay order filed May 15, 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 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. [11319234] (CKP) [Entered: 06/04/2019 01:20 PM]
June 3, 2019 Filing 3 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [11318001] (RR) [Entered: 06/03/2019 04:27 PM]
May 15, 2019 Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): 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 May 13, 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 May 2, 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. [11298182] (CKP) [Entered: 05/15/2019 10:53 AM]
May 14, 2019 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Lyle Mark Coultas opening brief due 07/12/2019. Appellees Oregon State Police, Steven Payne, Carroll Tichenor and Yamhill County District Attorney's Office answering brief due 08/12/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11296972] (HC) [Entered: 05/14/2019 01:42 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: Lyle Coultas v. Carroll Tichenor, 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 / appellee: STEVEN PAYNE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Oregon State Crime Laboratory Detective
Represented By: Andrew Hallman
Represented By: Judy C. Lucas
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 / appellee: OREGON STATE POLICE
Represented By: Andrew Hallman
Represented By: Judy C. Lucas
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 / appellee: YAMHILL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
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 / appellee: CARROLL TICHENOR, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Yamhill County Prosecutor
Represented By: Andrew Hallman
Represented By: Judy C. Lucas
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: LYLE MARK COULTAS
Represented By: Lyle Mark Coultas
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?