Justin Langford v. James Dzurenda, et al
| BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, Sr., Wardent of HDSP, STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel Nevada Department of Corrections, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, #7 SAC, GRAHAM, #7 SAC, K. THOMAS, #7 SAC, JAMES DZURENDA and B. WILLIAMS, #7 SAC |
| JUSTIN ODELL LANGFORD |
| 20-16889 |
| September 29, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 6, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 MANDATE ISSUED. (WAF, MSB and JSB) [11883879] (NAC) [Entered: 11/06/2020 07:19 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed order (WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, MARSHA S. BERZON and JAY S. BYBEE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the September 22, 2020 order challenged in the notice of appeal denied reconsideration of an order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend, and is therefore not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) ([W]hen a district court expressly grants leave to amend, it is plain that the order is not final. Something more is both anticipated and required. In that event, a further step must be taken to fix an unequivocal terminal date for appealability, and to avoid the hazards of confusion or misunderstanding as to the time for appeal. A final judgment must be obtained before the case becomes appealable.) (internal citation omitted); Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non-appealable order is itself not appealable). A review of the record reflects that the district court has not yet entered a final order dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, or a final judgment. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to appellant filing a new notice of appeal from a final order or judgment entered by the district court. See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984) (an appeal from a final judgment draws into question all earlier, non-final orders and rulings that produced the judgment). All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED.[11860452] (JPD) [Entered: 10/15/2020 03:13 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Justin Odell Langford motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11858630] (NAC) [Entered: 10/14/2020 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Justin Odell Langford motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [11858624] (NAC) [Entered: 10/14/2020 02:13 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Justin Odell Langford opening brief of 6 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 10/05/2020. Major deficiency: briefing is stayed (IFP motion pending). [11858245] (LA) [Entered: 10/14/2020 11:58 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Justin Odell Langford opening brief due 11/30/2020. [11841283] (JPD) [Entered: 09/29/2020 03:20 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.
