Charles Clary v. Reginald Michaels, et al
| KRISTY COBBAN, JIM SALMONSON, MONTANA PACIFIC QUALITY HEALTH, MARK LOCHRIE, PAUL REES, SCOTT MCNEIL, Captain, WELLS, Sgt., GRAHAM, D Unit Manager, TRISTAN KOHUT, ALL MSP LICENSED REGISTERED NURSES, HOLLAND, Sgt., QUINN, Sgt., REGINALD MICHAELS, ALL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO ADMINISTER PILL PASS, RONALD MCDONALD, CINDY HINER, HOSCHKISS, Sgt., WIGERT, C.O. and CONNIE WINNER |
| CHARLES CLARY |
| 21-35107 |
| February 8, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: CKP) Granting Motion to dismiss the case pursuant to rule 42b filed by Appellant Charles Clary. This order shall constitute the mandate. [12030282] (CKP) [Entered: 03/10/2021 01:34 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Charles Clary motion to dismiss preliminary injunction. Deficiencies: None. No service date. [12028188] (RL) [Entered: 03/08/2021 03:52 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Charles Clary motion to dismiss case pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Deficiencies: No certificate of service. Served on. [12027570] (DJV) [Entered: 03/08/2021 12:12 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): The appeal filed February 8, 2021 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 shall apply. A review of the record demonstrates that this appeal may be appropriate for summary disposition because the questions on which the decision in the appeal depends may be so insubstantial as not to justify further proceedings. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall show cause why the judgment in this appeal should not be summarily affirmed. Appellants opening brief is due March 19, 2021. Because there is no appearance by appellees, briefing will be completed upon the filing of the opening brief. A review of the district court docket reflects that appellant was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, and that such permission has not been revoked to date. Consequently, appellant's forma pauperis status continues in this court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1) and (2), however, appellant must pay the full amount of the filing and docketing fees for this appeal when funds are available in appellant's account. Consequently, within 21 days after the filing date of this order, appellant shall complete and file with this court the enclosed authorization form, which directs the prison officials at appellant's institution to assess, collect, and forward to the court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal on a monthly basis whenever funds exist in appellant's trust fund account. These fees will continue to be collected regardless of the date or manner of disposition of this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2) and (e)(2). Appellant is not responsible for payment when the funds in appellants prison trust account total less than $10.00, but payments must resume when additional deposits are made or funds are otherwise available. Appellants failure to comply with this order shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk shall send a prisoner authorization for to appellant along with this order. [12007127] (CKP) [Entered: 02/17/2021 03:43 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: to be set. Preliminary Injunction. C.R. 3-3. [11996389] (RT) [Entered: 02/08/2021 02:45 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.
