Robin Jackson v. Marsha Josiah, et al
| ROBIN ELAINE JACKSON |
| MARSHA J. JOSIAH and CLAUDE ELTON JOSIAH |
| 21-16288 |
| August 6, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellee may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [12236013] (CKP) [Entered: 09/22/2021 01:58 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed MINUTE ORDER: On September 14, 2021, the Court received a referral notice from the USCA for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff's IFP status should continue for this appeal or whether the appeal is frivolous or taken in bad faith. See ECF No. [52]. The Court finds Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff's IFP status is REVOKED. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002) (revocation of forma pauperis status is appropriate where district court finds the appeal to be frivolous). IT IS SO ORDERED. (cc: Ninth Circuit) [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] (Michel, G.) [12233611] (JFF) [Entered: 09/20/2021 03:07 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [12227789] (CKP) [Entered: 09/14/2021 11:48 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Robin Elaine Jackson opening brief due 10/04/2021. Appellees Claude Elton Josiah and Marsha J. Josiah answering brief due 11/03/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12194359] (JPD) [Entered: 08/06/2021 02:24 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.
