Dean Steeves v. Dorothy Nelson
| DEAN ALLEN STEEVES |
| DOROTHY NELSON, Internal Revenue Service/Revenue Officer |
| 21-56164 |
| October 21, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LK): Appellants motion (Docket Entry No. [ # 6 ]) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is denied as unnecessary. The order at Docket Entry No. 5 granted appellants previous motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief. 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. [12307258] (JBS) [Entered: 12/06/2021 03:24 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed (ECF) Appellant Dean Allen Steeves Amended Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 02/22/2022. Date of service: 12/03/2021. [12304800] [21-56164] (Steeves, Dean) [Entered: 12/03/2021 10:03 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LK): Appellants unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. [ # 4 ]) for an extension of time to file the opening brief 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. [12304797] (JBS) [Entered: 12/03/2021 09:56 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) court reporterDean Steeves motion to extend time to file transcript. Date of service: 11/24/2021. [12297768] [21-56164] (Steeves, Dean) [Entered: 11/24/2021 12:05 PM] |
| Filing 3 Attorney Nithya Senra in 21-56164 substituted by Attorney Curtis Clarence Pett in 21-56164 [12275497] (JFF) [Entered: 11/02/2021 10:41 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Curtis C. Pett (U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Post Office Box 502, Washington, D.C. 20044) for Appellee Dorothy Nelson. Substitution for Attorney Ms. Nithya Senra for Appellee Dorothy Nelson. Date of service: 11/02/2021. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12275178] [21-56164] (Pett, Curtis) [Entered: 11/02/2021 08:02 AM] |
Filing 1
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Dean Allen Steeves opening brief due 12/21/2021. Appellee Dorothy Nelson answering brief due 01/21/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12264532] (RT) [Entered: 10/21/2021 01:14 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: Dean Steeves v. Dorothy Nelson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: DEAN ALLEN STEEVES | |
| Represented By: | Dean Allen Steeves |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant / appellee: DOROTHY NELSON, Internal Revenue Service/Revenue Officer | |
| Represented By: | Nithya Senra |
| Represented By: | Curtis Clarence Pett Esquire |
| 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.
