Gabriel Eckard v. Charles Mitchell, et al
| GABRIEL ECKARD, AKA Gabriel Allen Eckard |
| CHARLES MITCHELL, Classification Counselor, ALEXIS WAFSTET, Classification Counselor, DAVID HALL, Deputy and KIMBERLY PARKER, Classification Supervisor |
| 19-36010 |
| December 4, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| GABRIEL ECKARD V. CHARLES MITCHELL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed original and 6 copies of Appellant Gabriel Eckard (Informal: No) opening brief of 11 pages. Served on 12/27/2019. [11549434] (LA) [Entered: 01/02/2020 03:34 PM] |
| Filing 4 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner completed authorization fee order. [11546481] (CKP) [Entered: 12/30/2019 11:58 AM] |
| Filing 3 Received PLRA authorization response from appellant. Dated 12/16/2019. [Case Number 19-36010: Partially Paid] [11541712] (QDL) [Entered: 12/23/2019 10:51 AM] |
| Filing 2 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner fee authorization form sent to prisoner. [11525694] (CKP) [Entered: 12/09/2019 01:36 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Gabriel Eckard opening brief due 01/27/2020. Appellees David Hall, Charles Mitchell, Kimberly Parker and Alexis Wafstet answering brief due 02/25/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11520521] (HC) [Entered: 12/04/2019 10:34 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.
