Nicholas Little v. Ronald Haynes
| NICHOLAS STERLING LITTLE |
| RONALD HAYNES, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center |
| 21-35589 |
| July 22, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed order (MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, PAUL J. WATFORD and KENNETH K. LEE) A review of the record and appellants response to this courts July 26, 2021 order to show cause demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the magistrate judges order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993) (magistrate judges findings and recommendations not appealable; premature appeal not cured by subsequent entry of final judgment by district court). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants appeal of the district courts final judgment entered on July 22, 2021 remains pending as appeal No. 21-35670. DISMISSED. [12230684] (JPD) [Entered: 09/16/2021 02:16 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Nicholas Sterling Little response to order to show cause [12208037] (NAC) [Entered: 08/23/2021 07:10 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Nicholas Sterling Little Declaration of inmate filing. [12205693] (JFF) [Entered: 08/19/2021 10:08 AM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [12186891] (NAC) [Entered: 07/29/2021 01:57 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993) (magistrate judges findings and recommendations not appealable; premature appeal not cured by subsequent entry of final judgment by district court). To date, appellant has not filed a notice of appeal from the district courts final judgment entered on July 22, 2021. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is stayed. [12183143] (CKP) [Entered: 07/26/2021 02:14 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 07/22/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12180272] (RT) [Entered: 07/22/2021 01:39 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.
| Search for this case: Nicholas Little v. Ronald Haynes | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: NICHOLAS STERLING LITTLE | |
| Represented By: | Nicholas Sterling Little |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: RONALD HAYNES, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center | |
| Represented By: | John Joseph Samson |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
