Carl Foust v. O. Kuku-Ojo
PRICE, MCATEE and FOX |
CARL FOUST |
O. KUKU-OJO |
20-15652 |
April 13, 2020 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 11, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 15 Filed Appellant Carl Foust additional documents and statements in support of case. Dated 06/28/2020. Paper filing deficiency: Mandate issued. [11718697] (RL) [Entered: 06/11/2020 11:57 AM] |
Filing 14 Filed Appellant Carl Foust letter dated 06/03/2020 re: Tampering with legal mail by librarian. Paper filing deficiency: Mandate issued. [11717723] (RL) [Entered: 06/10/2020 02:45 PM] |
Filing 13 Filed Appellant Carl Foust letter dated 05/28/2020 re: Statements regarding delayed response. Paper filing deficiency: Mandate issued. [11712137] (RL) [Entered: 06/05/2020 09:20 AM] |
Filing 12 Sent Appellant a copy of the FRAP and NInth Circuit rules, a copy of the docket sheet and docket entry numbers 4, 5 and 6 in response to his letter of request filed on 06/01/2020. [11709339] (JR) [Entered: 06/03/2020 09:06 AM] |
Filing 11 Filed Appellant Carl Foust letter dated 01/05/2020 re: FORM 29 request for Rules Book, Request for docket sheet, Request for copies of documents. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11708100] (RL) [Entered: 06/02/2020 11:10 AM] |
Filing 10 Received notice of change of address dated 05/01/2020 from Carl Foust. New address: T55643, CMF, PO Box 2500, Vacaville, CA 95696. [11708091] (RL) [Entered: 06/02/2020 11:06 AM] |
Filing 9 Filed Appellant Carl Foust FORM 14 motion for extension of time. Deficiencies: Mandate issued. Served on 04/30/2020. [11708083] (RL) [Entered: 06/02/2020 11:03 AM] |
Filing 8 Filed Appellant Carl Foust FORM 24 motion for appointment of counsel. Deficiencies: Mandate issued. Served on 04/30/2020. [11708059] (RL) [Entered: 06/02/2020 10:56 AM] |
Filing 7 Filed Appellant Carl Foust FORM 4 motion and affidavit for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Deficiencies: Csae closed, Mandate issued. Served on 04/30/2020. [11708049] (RL) [Entered: 06/02/2020 10:54 AM] |
Filing 6 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Carl Foust opening brief of 8 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 05/01/2020. Major deficiency: case is closed, mandate issued. [11707081] (KWG) [Entered: 06/01/2020 02:32 PM] |
Filing 5 MANDATE ISSUED. (MHM, JBO and MJB) [11694999] (RL) [Entered: 05/19/2020 09:14 AM] |
Filing 4 Filed order (MARY H. MURGUIA, JOHN B. OWENS and MARK J. BENNETT) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court has not entered any orders that are final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; see also In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (magistrate judge order not final or appealable); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (denial of appointment of counsel in civil case is not appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [11673065] (OC) [Entered: 04/27/2020 03:27 PM] |
Filing 3 Sent Appellant a copy of the case opening packet in response to his letter of request filed on 04/24/2020. [11672325] (JR) [Entered: 04/27/2020 10:19 AM] |
Filing 2 Filed Appellant Carl Foust letter dated 04/19/2020 re: Request for copy of case opening packet. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11670985] (RL) [Entered: 04/24/2020 12:05 PM] |
Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Carl Foust opening brief due 06/08/2020. Appellee O. Kuku-Ojo answering brief due 07/08/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11659567] (JPD) [Entered: 04/13/2020 04:13 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.