DaJuan Williams v. Ernesto Trujillo, et al
| SHAN, First Name Unknown; RN, contracted medical staff, BOYD, First Name Unknown; CO II, LUCAS, First Name Unknown; CO II, MUNLEY, First Name Unknown; Sgt., BOWERS, First Name Unknown; Captain at SMU II, L. HAYS, Nurse, contracted medical staff, CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Provider, contracted medical staff RN, ARANDA, First Name Unknown; Sgt., LUE, First Name Unknown; Sgt., PANANN DAYS, Deputy Warden SMU II, OSKVEREK, First Name Unknown; CO II, FLOYD, First Name Unknown; RN, contracted medical staff, TRIBOLET, First Name Unknown; CO II, DAVID SHINN, Director, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, in official capacity, ERNESTO TRUJILLO, Northern Operations Director ADOC and WEIGEL, First Name Unknown; Provider, contracted medical staff RN |
| DAJUAN WILLIAMS |
| 20-17344 |
| December 1, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Case terminated, opened in error. [11969895] (BY) [Entered: 01/20/2021 02:25 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Dajuan Williams opening brief due 01/22/2021. Appellees Aranda, Bowers, Boyd, Panann Days, Floyd, L. Hays, Christopher Johnson, Lucas, Lue, Munley, Oskverek, Shan, David Shinn, Director, Tribolet, Ernesto Trujillo and Weigel answering brief due 02/22/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11911949] (JPD) [Entered: 12/02/2020 08:51 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.
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.
