Will Sitton v. LVMPD, et al
| WILL SITTON |
| LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LAMBARDO, LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL, JACQUELINE M. BLUTH, of Clark County District Attorneys, ELISSA LUZAICH, AKA Reggo of Clark County District Attorneys, DAVID FARRARA, of the LV Review Journal newpaper, WESLEY JUHL, of the LV Review Journal newpaper, OFFICER CAPTAIN BAKER, CCS, OFFICER SERGEANT NEVILLE, OFFICER SERGEANT MENDOZA, OFFICER SERGEANT BILLINGSLEY, BARROWES, OFFICER CAMP, MECHAM, OFFICER ROHAN, C/O, OFFICER SLOAN, OFFICER CERA, OFFICER MASHORE, OFFICER SERGEANT MOWERY, OFFICER SERGEANT STOREY, CCDC MAIL DEPARTMENT, OFFICER HINES, OFFICER #8213 SENIOR, OFFICER SNOWDEN, C/O, OFFICER BEAN, OFFICER GILBERT, OFFICER EUBANKS, OFFICER TORRES, OFFICER YANAGIHARA, CCDC CLASSIFICATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICER SERGEANT KEGLEY, NAPHCARE MEDICAL, OFFICER SANDS, OFFICER GARDEA, SERGEANT SAAVEDRA, CADET, C/O DUMER, SMITH, YUZON, MCCASLAND and GRAHAM |
| 21-17084 |
| December 21, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (RCT, MBC and JHN) [12368802] (NAC) [Entered: 02/14/2022 07:44 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (RICHARD C. TALLMAN, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN) : A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the judgment challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order disposing of fewer than all claims against all parties not immediately appealable unless district court directs entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). This action remains pending before the district court. Although the district court entered a judgment with respect to the defendant granted summary judgment by its November 18, 2021 order, it did not include language permitting immediate appeal of the November 18, 2021 judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) (order disposing of fewer than all claims or parties is not appealable absent express determination from district court that there is no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b)). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a timely notice of appeal from any final judgment subsequently entered by the district court. See Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir. 1984) (an appeal from a final judgment draws into question all earlier, non-final orders and rulings which produced the judgment). DISMISSED. [12347507] (RT) [Entered: 01/21/2022 01:34 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 01/18/2022. Transcript due 02/15/2022. Appellant Will Sitton opening brief due 03/28/2022. Appellees Baker, Barrowes, Bean, Billingsley, Jacqueline M. Bluth, CCDC Classification Department, CCDC Mail Department, Cadet, Camp, Cera, Dumer, Eubanks, David Farrara, Gardea, Gilbert, Graham, Hines, Wesley Juhl, Kegley, Lambardo, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Las Vegas Review Journal, Elissa Luzaich, Mashore, McCasland, Mecham, Mendoza, Mowery, NaphCare Medical, Neville, Rohan, Saavedra, Sands, Senior, Sloan, Smith, Snowden, Storey, Torres, Yanagihara and Yuzon answering brief due 04/26/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12321621] (JMR) [Entered: 12/21/2021 10:10 AM] |
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.