Julia Richter v. Lisa Ausmus, et al
| JULIA RICHTER |
| LISA AUSMUS, TODD MORK, SEKOU MILLINGTON, ANNE KIRKPATRICK, DAMON GILBERT, BRYAN HUBBARD, NISHANT JOSHI, DARREN ALLISON, STEVEN FALK, DAVID LOW, KATANO KASAINE, CITY OF OAKLAND, GREG STANFIELD, SOPHIA TRINH, TEIR JENKINS, JESSICA BYRD-SALAS and KEITH RIDDLE |
| 21-16387 |
| August 24, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (MDH, PJW and KKL) [12252024] (JFF) [Entered: 10/08/2021 11:11 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, PAUL J. WATFORD and KENNETH K. LEE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Silberkleit v. Kantrowitz, 713 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir. 1983) (order granting or denying a stay of proceedings is not generally a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12230670] (JPD) [Entered: 09/16/2021 02:11 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 09/22/2021. Transcript due 10/22/2021. Appellant Julia Richter opening brief due 12/01/2021. Appellees Darren Allison, Lisa Ausmus, et al answering brief due 01/03/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12210443] (JPD) [Entered: 08/24/2021 03:44 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
