Edward Thomas v. C. Pfeiffer, et al
Defendant / Appellee: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION and C. PFEIFFER
Plaintiff / Appellant: EDWARD THOMAS
Case Number: 20-17472
Filed: December 22, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 27, 2021 Filing 3 Filed order (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and ERIC D. MILLER) This court has reviewed the notice of appeal and accompanying documents filed December 21, 2020 in the above-referenced district court docket pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in docket No. 09-80085. Appeal No. 20-17472 shall be permitted to proceed. A review of this courts docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the district court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The opening brief is due March 29, 2021. Because appellant is proceeding without counsel, appellant is not required to file excerpts of record. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.3. Because there are no appearances by appellees, briefing will be completed upon the filing of the opening brief. The filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis will automatically stay the briefing schedule under Ninth Circuit Rule 27-11. The Clerk shall serve a case opening packet and a Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. [11983866]--[NDA Resent; Order PDF replaced; edited 01/28/2021 by JMR] (JMR) [Entered: 01/27/2021 04:54 PM]
December 23, 2020 Filing 2 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court filed on 12/21/2020. [11949940] (QDL) [Entered: 12/31/2020 03:37 PM]
December 22, 2020 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. This appeal is subject to a pre-filing review order in case number 09-80085. The appeal will be reviewed by the Court to determine whether it will be allowed to proceed. No briefing schedule will be set until/unless the Court determines that the appeal should be allowed to proceed. [11937657] (RT) [Entered: 12/22/2020 07:10 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.

Search for this case: Edward Thomas v. C. Pfeiffer, 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: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
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: C. PFEIFFER
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: EDWARD THOMAS
Represented By: Edward Thomas
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.


Why Is My Information Online?