Richard Evans v. Harrison, et al
| CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION |
| HARRISON, Correctional Officer |
| RICHARD A. EVANS |
| 20-15674 |
| April 15, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Richard A. Evans letter dated 04/28/2020 re: Abuse of discretion. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11682608] (QDL) [Entered: 05/06/2020 01:53 PM] |
| Filing 2 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 notice of appeal does not challenge a final or appealable order entered by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice not appealable if made pursuant to settlement agreement intended to terminate litigation); In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (magistrate judge order not final or appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [11669846] (JMR) [Entered: 04/23/2020 01:35 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Richard A. Evans opening brief due 06/22/2020. Appellee Harrison answering brief due 07/22/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11661938] (RT) [Entered: 04/15/2020 01:42 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.
