Hoda Samuel v. USDOJ, et al
| STEVEN FELDERSTEIN, SUSAN GARREN, Director of EOUSA, MICHELLE LECROY, UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MICHAEL MCMANUS, Judge, SUTTER, AUSA, BENJAMIN WAGNER, US Attorney General, PHILIP A. FERRARI, AUSA, SCOTT SACKETT, United States Trustee and TODD PICKEL, AUSA |
| HODA SAMUEL |
| 20-15556 |
| March 31, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Hoda Samuel motion to extend time to file appellant opening brief until 08/31/2020. Deficiencies: None. [11703573] (RR) [Entered: 05/28/2020 10:10 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Hoda Samuel letter dated 04/03/2020 re: Request for case summary & briefing schedule. Paper filing deficiency: None. (sent copy of docket sheet) [11657861] (RL) [Entered: 04/10/2020 02:44 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 04/07/2020. [11655210] (RT) [Entered: 04/08/2020 10:56 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CKP): Order to show cause docket fee due [11652712] (CKP) [Entered: 04/06/2020 02:01 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Hoda Samuel opening brief due 05/29/2020. Appellees Steven Felderstein, et al., answering brief due 06/29/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11647286] (JPD) [Entered: 03/31/2020 01:16 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.
