Sharon Beck v. USDC-NVR
| SHARON KATHRYN BECK |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, RENO |
| In re: SHARON KATHRYN BECK |
| RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, (Indio) and STATE OF CALIFORNIA |
| 19-71263 |
| May 21, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed letter dated 05/23/2019 re: certificate of service. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11312948] (RL) [Entered: 05/30/2019 08:57 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Petitioner Sharon Kathryn Beck letter dated 05/17/2019 re: Copy of judgment in civil case. Paper filing deficiency: Case closed. [11307019] (RL) [Entered: 05/23/2019 10:27 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and CARLOS T. BEA) Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) ([T]his court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.). Accordingly, the petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [11306199] (JBS) [Entered: 05/22/2019 02:52 PM] |
| Filing 1 FILED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. [11305008][COURT UPDATE: New Documents Attached, resent NDA,--[Edited 05/22/2019 by BY] (BY) [Entered: 05/21/2019 04:52 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.
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.
