<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/xsl/rss2.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Will Sitton v. LVMPD, et al :: Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</title>
        <link>https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/21-17084</link>
        <atom:link href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/21-17084/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2026 02:27:43 -0800</pubDate>
        <lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2026 02:27:43 -0800</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</generator>
        <copyright>Copyright 2026 Justia Inc</copyright>
        <description>Will Sitton v. LVMPD, et al - Docket Entries - Showing 1 through 3</description>
                                    <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 3]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                MANDATE ISSUED. (RCT, MBC and JHN) [12368802] (NAC) [Entered: 02/14/2022 07:44 AM]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_15291429</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Mon, 14 Feb 2022 00:00:00 -0800
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 2]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                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]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_15291428</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Fri, 21 Jan 2022 00:00:00 -0800
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 1]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                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]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_14660639</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Tue, 21 Dec 2021 00:00:00 -0800
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                </channel>
</rss>
