Keith Thomas v. Marcus Pollard
| MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, Warden |
| KEITH THOMAS |
| 20-55640 |
| June 22, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Keith Thomas report on the status of the US District Court proceeding and motion for appropriate relief. Deficiencies: Case closed. Served on 07/18/2020. [11767899] (RL) [Entered: 07/27/2020 03:52 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, MARY M. SCHROEDER and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) This court has reviewed the notice of appeal filed June 18, 2020 in the above-referenced district court docket pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in docket No. 01-80091. On June 25, 2020, the district court issued an order requesting a limited remand and indicating its willingness to reconsider its prior orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 12.1(b). On June 29, 2020, this court remanded this appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the district court to reconsider its prior orders. On July 8, 2020, the district court entered an order reconsidering its prior orders denying forma pauperis status and dismissing the action, and reopened the case. Because the action is still pending in the district court, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and it shall not be permitted to proceed. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; see also In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2007). Appeal No. 20-55640 is therefore dismissed. This order, served on the district court for the Southern District of California, shall constitute the mandate of this court. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained. DISMISSED. [11763750] (WL) [Entered: 07/23/2020 01:22 PM] |
| Filing 6 Received copy of District Court order filed on 07/08/2020. [11748490] (JFF) [Entered: 07/10/2020 10:28 AM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of District Court order filed on.06/23/20 Court requests remand for the purpose of granting the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and permitting the case to proceed. [11745622] (JFF) [Entered: 07/08/2020 09:53 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): On June 25, 2020, the district court issued an order requesting a limited remand and indicating its willingness to reconsider its prior orders and to grant appellants June 22, 2020 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, if permitted to do so pursuant to a limited remand from this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 12.1(b); Mendia v. Garcia, 874 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that a FRCP 62.1 motion is not a prerequisite for a limited remand under FRAP 12.1(b) where the district court has already indicated it would grant a motion for the requested relief). Accordingly, this appeal is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling the district court to reconsider its prior orders denying in forma paupers status and dismissing the action, and to rule on appellants June 22, 2020 motion. Within 60 days after the date of this order or within 7 days after the district courts ruling, whichever occurs first, appellant shall file a report on the status of district court proceedings and motion for appropriate relief. Briefing is stayed pending further order of the court. See 9th Cir. R. 27-11.(MOATT) [11737230] (WL) [Entered: 06/29/2020 04:58 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [11734833] (RL) [Entered: 06/26/2020 11:28 AM] |
| Filing 2 Received copy of District Court order filed: The Court requests remand for the purpose of granting the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and permitting the case to proceed. [11733448] (JFF) [Entered: 06/25/2020 11:48 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEE. This appeal is subject to a pre-filing review order in case number 01--80091. 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. [11729689] (RT) [Entered: 06/22/2020 03:41 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: Keith Thomas v. Marcus Pollard | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, Warden | |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: KEITH THOMAS | |
| Represented By: | Keith 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.
