Donnell Bledsoe v. Leatuge, et al
DONNELL BLEDSOE |
CHRISTEN, MICHELL, MARTINEZ, Sgt., LEATUGE and SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY JAIL |
20-17360 |
December 3, 2020 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on January 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (SRT, ADH and BSB) [11953901] (RL) [Entered: 01/06/2021 09:21 AM] |
Filing 2 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and BRIDGET S. BADE): A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over these appeals because the orders challenged in the appeals are not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; In re San Vicente Med. Partners Ltd., 865 F.2d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989) (order) (magistrate judge order not final or appealable); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1986) (denial of appointment of counsel in civil case is not appealable); see also United States v. Washington, 573 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1978) (order denying motion to disqualify judge is not final or appealable). Consequently, these appeals are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [11929087] [20-17103, 20-17360] (AF) [Entered: 12/15/2020 07:06 PM] |
Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Donnell Bledsoe opening brief due 01/29/2021. Appellees Christen, Leatuge, Martinez, Michell and San Joaquin County Jail answering brief due 03/01/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11913547] (JMR) [Entered: 12/03/2020 09:52 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.