Robert Hatcher v. Lindsey Ball, et al
| STOIMEN, Doctor, OLIVIA ARTHUR, Angela K Aurther Mother, PHYLLIS TAYLOR, N.P., LEON, Doctor, SERINA, SNR Head Nurse, MOHAMMED PASHMFOROUSH, MD, MICHELLE L.R. OBAMA, Former First Lady, S. EVIMOV, MD, FREEDLAND, Physician, Doctor and LINDSEY L. BALL, Tri City Medical Center Physician |
| ROBERT HATCHER |
| 19-55688 |
| June 18, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 29, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Robert Hatcher statement that appeal should go forward. [11379949] (NAC) [Entered: 07/29/2019 03:18 PM] |
| Filing 7 Received Appellant Robert Hatcher notice to waive the filing fee. [11379945] (NAC) [Entered: 07/29/2019 03:17 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Robert Hatcher supplemental motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [11355368] (NAC) [Entered: 07/05/2019 02:52 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Robert Hatcher motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11355360] (NAC) [Entered: 07/05/2019 02:49 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Robert Hatcher motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [11351881] (NAC) [Entered: 07/02/2019 10:27 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Robert Hatcher motion to correct the names of the plaintiff and the defendants; time schedule order; correction of petition. Deficiencies: None. [11351878] (NAC) [Entered: 07/02/2019 10:25 AM] |
| Filing 2 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 is frivolous 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. [11345408] (CKP) [Entered: 06/26/2019 01:34 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Robert Hatcher opening brief due 08/13/2019. [11335163] (JMR) [Entered: 06/18/2019 09:44 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.
