Melchor Limpin v. Robert McSeveney, et al
| ROBERT MCSEVENEY, Immigration Judge, KERRI CALCADOR, DHS attorney, COBIAN, ICE agent; immigration officer, LARWA, ICE agent; immigration officer, JEH JOHNSON, former Secretary of U.S. DHS, KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General, former Attorney General of California, GUY GRANDE, DHS Attorney and PORTER, ICE agent; immigration officer |
| MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN |
| 20-55866 |
| August 24, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| MELCHOR LIMPIN V. ROBERT MCSEVENEY |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 19, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Received original and 1 copies of Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin opening brief of 42 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 10/15/2020. Major deficiency: briefing is stayed (IFP motion pending). [11865686] (KWG) [Entered: 10/20/2020 01:53 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 08/19/2020. [11799507] (RT) [Entered: 08/24/2020 09:34 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Melchor Karl T. Limpin opening brief due 10/26/2020. Appellees Kerri Calcador, Cobian, Guy Grande, Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Jeh Johnson, Larwa, Robert McSeveney and Porter answering brief due 11/27/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11799361] (RT) [Entered: 08/24/2020 08:54 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.
