Astarte Davis v. Joseph Wilson, et al
| STEPHEN P. FRECCERO, individually and in his official capacity as a Judge in the Marin County Superior Court of the State of California, JOSEPH WILSON, individually and in his official capacity as a Judge in the Marin County Superior Court of the State of California and MARK B. SIMONS, individually and in his official capacity as a Justice and Acting P.J. in the Court of Appeal of the State of California |
| ASTARTE DAVIS |
| 20-16136 |
| June 10, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Filed Appellant Astarte Davis letter dated re: Notice and request. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11769576] (JFF) [Entered: 07/28/2020 02:40 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Astarte Davis letter dated re: statement. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11740889] (JFF) [Entered: 07/02/2020 11:32 AM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Astarte Davis motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 06/29/2020. [11740882] (JFF) [Entered: 07/02/2020 11:30 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and is frivolous and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. 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 files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. 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. The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. 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. [11732169] (CKP) [Entered: 06/24/2020 12:09 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of District Court order filed on 06/15/2020. IFP status is hereby REVOKED[11730395] (JFF) [Entered: 06/23/2020 10:23 AM] |
| Filing 4 Copy of letter received from Appellant Astarte Davis. Case history [11730391] (JFF) [Entered: 06/23/2020 10:21 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Astarte Davis objection to referral . [11729249] (JFF) [Entered: 06/22/2020 01:01 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [11719907] (CKP) [Entered: 06/12/2020 10:16 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Astarte Davis opening brief due 08/12/2020. [11716875] (RT) [Entered: 06/10/2020 07:49 AM] |
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.
| Search for this case: Astarte Davis v. Joseph Wilson, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: STEPHEN P. FRECCERO, individually and in his official capacity as a Judge in the Marin County Superior Court of the State of California | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: JOSEPH WILSON, individually and in his official capacity as a Judge in the Marin County Superior Court of the State of California | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: MARK B. SIMONS, individually and in his official capacity as a Justice and Acting P.J. in the Court of Appeal of the State of California | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: ASTARTE DAVIS | |
| Represented By: | Astarte Davis |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
