Thomas Lauro v. State of Hawaii, et al
| STEVEN DEWITT, M.D., in his individual and official capacities |
| GARY SALDANA, M.D., in his individual and official capacities, SISAR PADERES, M.D., in his individual and official capacities, HALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, WAIAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, STATE OF HAWAII, DOES, 1-100 and STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, State of Hawaii |
| THOMAS LAURO, AKA Thomas Reyes |
| 20-15495 |
| March 23, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 21, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and DANIEL PAUL COLLINS) : Upon a review of the record, the response to the courts May 1, 2020 order, and the opening brief received on May 12, 2020, we conclude this appeal is frivolous. We therefore deny appellants motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. [ # 4 ] ), see 28 U.S.C. 1915(a), and dismiss this appeal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (court shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious). All other pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [11698450] (RT) [Entered: 05/21/2020 04:11 PM] |
| Filing 20 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro response to order to show cause [11695384] (NAC) [Entered: 05/19/2020 11:32 AM] |
| Filing 19 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro miscellaneous letter dated 05/12/2020. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11695381] (NAC) [Entered: 05/19/2020 11:31 AM] |
| Filing 18 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion for relief from judgment. Deficiencies: None. [11695368] (NAC) [Entered: 05/19/2020 11:28 AM] |
| Filing 17 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion for supplemental jurisdiction. Deficiencies: None. [11695345] (NAC) [Entered: 05/19/2020 11:22 AM] |
| Filing 16 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion to extend time to file appellant opening brief. Deficiencies: None [11690955] (NAC) [Entered: 05/14/2020 12:55 PM] |
| Filing 15 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Thomas Lauro opening brief of 9 pages (Informal: No). Served on 05/12/2020. Served by Court via CM/ECF. Major deficiency: briefing is stayed, motion pending. [11688528] (KWG) [Entered: 05/12/2020 02:46 PM] |
| Filing 14 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro letter dated 05/04/2020 re: has sent requests for attorney and has not heard back. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11688324] (NAC) [Entered: 05/12/2020 01:31 PM] |
| Filing 13 Received Appellant Thomas Lauro notice of obstruction of justice. [11682347] (NAC) [Entered: 05/06/2020 11:54 AM] |
| Filing 12 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): Appellant filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. The district courts April 13, 2020 order indicated that the district court did not previously grant appellant in forma pauperis status in this action, and that this appeal is frivolous and not taken in good faith. 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 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). If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellee may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. All pending motions will be addressed after appellant complies with this order. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward. 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. [11678051] (CKP) [Entered: 05/01/2020 01:04 PM] |
| Filing 10 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion for all expert reports, photographs. Deficiencies: None. [11672985] (NAC) [Entered: 04/27/2020 03:03 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion for appointment of counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/09/2020. [11673118] (QDL) [Entered: 04/27/2020 03:42 PM] |
| Filing 9 Received copy of District Court order filed on 04/13/2020. EO: Re: Referral for Determination Whether In Forma Pauperis Status Shall Continue on Appeal re 370 : This action was removed to this federal court by Defendants on November 29, 2012. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff never sought and was not granted in forma pauperis status at any time in this action. Nor did Plaintiff seek to proceed in forma pauperis on his first appeal in App. No. 15-17457. See ECF No. 325 (reflecting payment of $505 appellate fee); see also ECF No. 341 (Mandate of USCA, dismissing appeal for lack of prosecution). When Plaintiff attempted to reopen this case in July 2019 and thereafter, he did not seek nor was he granted in forma pauperis status. See generally, ECF Nos. 342-63. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the December 4, 2019 Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 357, the Court finds that any appeal in this long-closed action is frivolous and is not taken in good faith, and any request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is and should be DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). (JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON)(tyk) [11660666] (NAC) [Entered: 04/14/2020 01:30 PM] |
| Filing 8 Streamlined request by Appellant Thomas Lauro to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. See 9th Cir. R. 27-11. [11659565] (JN) [Entered: 04/13/2020 04:12 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11659212] (NAC) [Entered: 04/13/2020 01:38 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion to compel production of the sealed portion of the motion to withdraw as counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11659208] (NAC) [Entered: 04/13/2020 01:36 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11659178] (NAC) [Entered: 04/13/2020 01:29 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Thomas Lauro motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [11659131] (NAC) [Entered: 04/13/2020 01:14 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [11659059] (CKP) [Entered: 04/13/2020 12:36 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [11641122] (NAC) [Entered: 03/25/2020 09:34 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Thomas Lauro opening brief due 05/11/2020. Appellees Does, Halawa Correctional Facility, Sisar Paderes, Gary Saldana, State of Hawaii, State of Hawaii Department of Public Safety and Waiawa Correctional Facility answering brief due 06/10/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11639390] (JPD) [Entered: 03/23/2020 05:57 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.
