Tariq Muhammad v. Patrick Garett, et al
| TARIQ MUHAMMAD |
| PATRICK GARETT, Washington County Sheriff, LE, Wash. Co. Sheriff Deputy, TOOMBS, Wash. Co. Sheriff Deputy and SHAMOOD, Wash. Co. Sheriff Deputy |
| 21-35849 |
| October 7, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 29, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: CKP) Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1). Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to order. (Order dated 10/14/2021). This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. [12299540] (CKP) [Entered: 11/29/2021 11:34 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): Appellants motion [ # 3 ] for voluntary dismissal is denied because the motion requests dismissal without prejudice. If appellant seeks voluntary dismissal of this appeal, the motion must request dismissal with prejudice. Within 14 days of this order, appellant may file a renewed motion for voluntary dismissal requesting dismissal with prejudice. If a renewed motion is not filed, appellant remains obligated to comply with the October 14, 2021 order. The Clerk will a send a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal to appellant along with this order. [12269264] (CKP) [Entered: 10/26/2021 01:49 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Tariq Muhammad motion to dismiss. Deficiencies: None. [12261372] (JFF) [Entered: 10/19/2021 11:41 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. If the court dismisses the appeal as frivolous, this appeal may be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [12256775] (CKP) [Entered: 10/14/2021 10:27 AM] |
| 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: Appellant Tariq Muhammad opening brief due 12/06/2021. [12251258] (JPD) [Entered: 10/07/2021 03:23 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.
