Raymond Bradford v. J. Ceballos, et al
| RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD |
| J. CEBALLOS, Appeals Coordinator, C. MUNOZ, Correctional Lieutenant and D. GOREE, Jr., Appeals Coordinator |
| 21-15973 |
| June 4, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed order (JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and LAWRENCE VANDYKE): This court has reviewed the notice of appeal filed June 3, 2021 in the above-referenced district court docket pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in docket No. 08-80078. Because the appeal is so insubstantial as to not warrant further review, it shall not be permitted to proceed. See In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2007). Appeal No. 21-15973 is therefore dismissed. This order, served on the district court for the Eastern 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. [12175048] (AF) [Entered: 07/16/2021 02:53 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT. NO APPEARANCE BY APPELLEES. This appeal is subject to a pre-filing review order in case number 08-80078. 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. [12134674] (HH) [Entered: 06/04/2021 04:12 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.
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.
