Donald Biederman v. Patrick McTighe, et al
Defendant / Appellee: TILLMAN, DEVERA, PATRICK MCTIGHE and ALSTAD
Plaintiff / Appellant: DONALD DEAN BIEDERMAN, AKA Donald Beiderman
Case Number: 19-35710
Filed: August 21, 2019
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 9, 2019 Filing 7 Filed Appellant Donald Dean Biederman response to 9/27/19 order. Served on 10/02/2019. [11458854] (CW) [Entered: 10/09/2019 08:51 AM]
September 27, 2019 Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): On September 13, 2019, appellant filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. Also on September 13, 2019, appellant filed a motion not to strike in which he appears to state that he wishes to pursue his claims. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall clarify whether he wishes to pursue this appeal by filing either a renewed motion for voluntary dismissal or a response to this courts August 26, 2019 order. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The briefing schedule remains stayed. [11446302] (CKP) [Entered: 09/27/2019 12:19 PM]
September 13, 2019 Filing 5 Filed Appellant Donald Dean Biederman motion not to strike. Deficiencies: None. Served on 09/05/2019. [11432278] (CW) [Entered: 09/16/2019 10:19 AM]
September 13, 2019 Filing 4 Filed Appellant Donald Dean Biederman motion to dismiss case pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Deficiencies: None. Served on 09/05/2019. [11432274] (CW) [Entered: 09/16/2019 10:18 AM]
August 26, 2019 Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith 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. 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 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. [11410520] (CKP) [Entered: 08/26/2019 02:28 PM]
August 26, 2019 Filing 2 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 19-35710: Due] ). [11409801] (CO) [Entered: 08/26/2019 10:33 AM]
August 21, 2019 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Donald Dean Biederman opening brief due 10/21/2019. (No appearance for appellees, no answering brief deadlines set) [11404972] (HC) [Entered: 08/21/2019 10:24 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.

Search for this case: Donald Biederman v. Patrick McTighe, 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: TILLMAN
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: DEVERA
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: PATRICK MCTIGHE
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: ALSTAD
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: DONALD DEAN BIEDERMAN, AKA Donald Beiderman
Represented By: Donald Dean Biederman
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?