David Getzen v. Unknown Party, et al
| UNKNOWN PARTY, named as: John Doe CEO at Direct Buy Tobacco, UNKNOWN PARTY, named as: John Doe CEO at Keefee Supply Inc St Louis, MO and CHARLES L. RYAN, Director at Arizona Department of Corrections Tucson, AZ |
| DAVID GETZEN |
| 20-17252 |
| November 17, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MANDATE ISSUED. (SRT, ADH and BSB) [11952234] (RL) [Entered: 01/05/2021 08:59 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and BRIDGET S. BADE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal, dated November 1, 2020 and filed on November 12, 2020, was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on September 17, 2019, or the district courts post-judgment order entered on April 9, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [11926199] (OC) [Entered: 12/14/2020 12:23 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant David Getzen FORM 24 motion for appointment of counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 11/27/2020. [11914225] (RL) [Entered: 12/03/2020 02:09 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant David Getzen FORZM 4 motion and affidavit for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 11/27/2020. [11914220] (RL) [Entered: 12/03/2020 02:08 PM] |
| 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 David Getzen opening brief due 01/11/2021. [11895643] (JMR) [Entered: 11/17/2020 11:00 AM] |
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.
| Search for this case: David Getzen v. Unknown Party, 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: UNKNOWN PARTY, named as: John Doe CEO at Direct Buy Tobacco | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: UNKNOWN PARTY, named as: John Doe CEO at Keefee Supply Inc St Louis, MO | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: CHARLES L. RYAN, Director at Arizona Department of Corrections Tucson, AZ | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: DAVID GETZEN | |
| Represented By: | David Getzen |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | 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.
