Kevin McCullom v. Gregory Ahern, et al
| ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE |
| KEVIN LEE MCCULLOM |
| GREGORY AHERN, Alameda County Sheriff's Department |
| 21-16684 |
| October 12, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 10, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom motion to appeal cases. Deficiencies: None. [12312703] (NAC) [Entered: 12/10/2021 01:06 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [12309924] (NAC) [Entered: 12/08/2021 11:58 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom motion to appeal to the US Court of Appeals. Deficiencies: None [12289101] (NAC) [Entered: 11/16/2021 02:23 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom motion motion for Court to consider Appealability. Deficiencies: None. [12285799] (NAC) [Entered: 11/12/2021 01:31 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom motion for Court to consider Appealability due to motion for perliminary injunction. Deficiencies: None. [12277425] (NAC) [Entered: 11/03/2021 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom motion for certificate of appealability. Deficiencies: None. [12273019] (NAC) [Entered: 10/29/2021 01:23 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received Appellant Kevin Lee McCullom miscellaneous notice. [12264753] (NAC) [Entered: 10/21/2021 02:44 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 09/23/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12253984] (WL) [Entered: 10/12/2021 12:53 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.
