Cornel Jackson v. Charles Barrett
| CORNEL JACKSON |
| CHARLES MARTIN BARRETT, Defense Attorney |
| 21-16363 |
| August 19, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Cornel Jackson motion to dismiss case pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Deficiencies: None. [12257623] (QDL) [Entered: 10/14/2021 03:21 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AT): A review of the record reflects that this appeal may be frivolous. 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 motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant does not move to dismiss this appeal, the court may dismiss the appeal as frivolous, without further notice. Any determination of whether the appeal is frivolous will be based on the opening brief received on September 21, 2021, and appellants statement, if any, in response to this order. If the court dismisses the appeal as frivolous, this appeal may be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss this appeal or statement that the appeal should go forward. [12244380] (JBS) [Entered: 09/30/2021 04:07 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed original and 0 copies of Appellant Cornel Jackson opening brief of 6 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 09/13/2021. (motion for IFP and appointment of counsel pending, briefing remains stayed) [12234963] (KWG) [Entered: 09/21/2021 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Cornel Jackson FORM 24 motion for appointment of cousnel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 09/13/2021. [12234898] (RL) [Entered: 09/21/2021 02:22 PM] |
| Filing 2 ENTRY UPDATED. Filed Appellant Cornel Jackson FORM 4 motion and affidavit for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 09/13/2021. [12234893] [12234893]--[Edited 09/21/2021 by RL] (RL) [Entered: 09/21/2021 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEE. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Cornel Jackson opening brief due 10/18/2021. [12206195] (JMR) [Entered: 08/19/2021 02:17 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: Cornel Jackson v. Charles Barrett | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: CORNEL JACKSON | |
| Represented By: | Cornel Jackson |
| 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: CHARLES MARTIN BARRETT, Defense Attorney | |
| 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.
