Andrew Moret v. Pat Garrett, et al
| ANDREW GUY MORET |
| PAT GARRETT, M LLOYD, S. HOPSON, B. CONDON, H. SMITH, S. SIEMILLER, A. ASHENFELTER, R. BOSE, J. SHULZ, GODFRIED, BRANFORD, T. MILLSAP and WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL |
| 21-35886 |
| October 21, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| ANDREW MORET V. PAT GARRETT, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AT): Appellants motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief (Docket Entry No. [ # 11 ]) is granted. The opening brief is due February 22, 2022. The answering brief is due March 24, 2022. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. Because appellant is proceeding without counsel, appellant is not required to file excerpts of record. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.3. If appellant does not file excerpts of record, appellees must file Supplemental Excerpts of Record that contain all of the documents that are cited in the pro se opening brief or otherwise required by Rule 30-1.4, as well as the documents that are cited in the answering brief. See id. [12319662] (JBS) [Entered: 12/17/2021 03:35 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed Appellant Andrew Guy Moret motion to extend time to file appellant opening brief. Deficiencies: None. [12318189] (NAC) [Entered: 12/16/2021 02:07 PM] |
| Filing 10 Filed Appellant Andrew Guy Moret ex-parte letter dated 12/01/2021 re: correspondence to the US District Court. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12306546] (NAC) [Entered: 12/06/2021 11:34 AM] |
| Filing 9 Filed Appellant Andrew Guy Moret in 21-35424, 21-35886, 21-35915 letter dated 11/04/2021 re: denying without reason. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12288040] [21-35424, 21-35886, 21-35915] (RR) [Entered: 11/15/2021 05:09 PM] |
| Filing 8 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner completed authorization fee order. [12279971] (CKP) [Entered: 11/05/2021 02:28 PM] |
| Filing 7 Received PLRA authorization response from appellant. Dated 10/27/2021. [12278323] (NAC) [Entered: 11/04/2021 12:06 PM] |
| Filing 6 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 21-35886: IFP] ). [12265911] (NAC) [Entered: 10/22/2021 01:49 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. Includes Docketing statement, motion to appoint counsel, motion for extension of time. [12265818] (NAC) [Entered: 10/22/2021 01:18 PM] |
| Filing 4 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner fee authorization form sent to prisoner. [12265777] (CKP) [Entered: 10/22/2021 01:00 PM] |
Filing 3
Received copy of District Court order filed on 10/22/2021. Granting Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis [114]. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry [12265747] (NAC) [Entered: 10/22/2021 12:40 PM]
|
| Filing 2 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [12265223] (NAC) [Entered: 10/22/2021 07:53 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Andrew Guy Moret opening brief due 12/22/2021. Appellees A. Ashenfelter, R. Bose, Branford, B. Condon, Pat Garrett, Godfried, S. Hopson, M Lloyd, T. Millsap, J. Shulz, S. Siemiller, H. Smith and Washington County Jail answering brief due 01/24/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12265059] (RT) [Entered: 10/21/2021 04:53 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.
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.
