Steven Catlin v. Ron Davis
| RON DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison and RONALD DAVIS, Warden, Warden of San Quentin State Prison |
| STEVEN CATLIN |
| 19-99011 |
| December 31, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: NA): Appellants motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief (Docket Entry No. [ # 4 ]) is granted. The opening brief and excerpts of record are now due August 31, 2020; the answering brief is due October 30, 2020; and the reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11603853] (AF) [Entered: 02/20/2020 03:52 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellant Steven Catlin Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 08/31/2020. Date of service: 02/17/2020. [11598982] [19-99011] (Stetler, Saor) [Entered: 02/17/2020 11:30 PM] |
| Filing 3 Criminal Justice Act electronic voucher created. (Counsel: Mr. Saor E. Stetler, Esquire for Steven Catlin) [11561124] (TG) [Entered: 01/14/2020 09:36 AM] |
| Filing 2 Criminal Justice Act electronic voucher created. (Counsel: Mr. Richard Glenn Novak, Esquire for Steven Catlin) [11561121] (TG) [Entered: 01/14/2020 09:36 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Steven Catlin opening brief due 03/02/2020. Appellee Ron Davis answering brief due 05/01/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11548065] (HH) [Entered: 12/31/2019 02:11 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
