Ralph Hernandez v. Office of Public Advocacy, et al
| SHELLEY KAY CHAFFIN |
| RALPH HERNANDEZ |
| OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, State of Alaska, JAMES CORRIGAN, DANIEL L . LOWERY, BRENDON KELLEY and JOSEPH VAN DEMARK, Supervisor |
| 19-36052 |
| December 12, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| RALPH HERNANDEZ V. OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 31, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MN): The motion to stay appellate proceedings (Docket Entry No. [ # 3 ]) is denied. The motion to proceed on in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. [ # 4 ]) will be addressed by separate order. The briefing schedule is stayed pending further order of the court. [11581316] (OC) [Entered: 01/31/2020 02:42 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Ralph Hernandez motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 12/19/2018. [11546741] (CW) [Entered: 12/30/2019 02:03 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Ralph Hernandez motion to stay further action. Deficiencies: None. Served on 12/20/2019. [11546734] (CW) [Entered: 12/30/2019 02:01 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CKP): Order to show cause docket fee due [11533128] (CKP) [Entered: 12/16/2019 10:35 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Ralph Hernandez opening brief due 02/07/2020.. [11529918] (JPD) [Entered: 12/12/2019 10:39 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.
