Clifton Hutchins, Jr. v. Bill Lockyer, et al
| CLIFTON HUTCHINS, Jr. |
| BILL LOCKYER, A. KLANG, A. YOUSSEF, A. JOHAL, SHEHETA, RAMOS, PATEL, J. KATAVICH and J. LEWIS |
| 22-15036 |
| January 10, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| CLIFTON HUTCHINS, JR. V. BILL LOCKYER, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner completed authorization fee order. [12381683] (CKP) [Entered: 02/28/2022 11:48 AM] |
| Filing 8 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): On February 24, 2022, the court dismissed this appeal for failure to prosecute because appellant had not returned a completed prisoner authorization form. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. Appellant has now returned a completed prisoner authorization form. Appellants prisoner authorization form is treated in part as a motion to reinstate this appeal and is granted. The February 24, 2022 order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. Appellants letter to the court received on February 18, 2022 is treated as a motion for extension of time to file the opening brief and is granted. The opening brief is due April 15, 2022, the answering brief is due May 16, 2022, and 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.[12380653] (WL) [Entered: 02/25/2022 03:20 PM] |
| 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 01/11/2022). This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. [12379066] (CKP) [Entered: 02/24/2022 12:12 PM] |
| Filing 7 Received Appellant Clifton Hutchins, Jr. notice regarding status of case. [12379934] (RR) [Entered: 02/25/2022 09:57 AM] |
| Filing 6 Received PLRA authorization response from appellant. Dated 02/14/2022. [12379932] (RR) [Entered: 02/25/2022 09:56 AM] |
| Filing 4 Attorney Sarah M. Brattin in 22-15036 substituted by Attorney Oliver Wu in 22-15036 [12369832] (RR) [Entered: 02/14/2022 03:18 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Oliver C. Wu (California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 455 Golden Gate Ave, Suite 11000, San Francisco, CA 94102) for Appellee A. Johal. Substitution for Attorney Sarah M. Brattin for Appellee A. Johal. Date of service: 02/14/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12369052] [22-15036] (Wu, Oliver) [Entered: 02/14/2022 10:00 AM] |
| Filing 2 CLERK ORDER FILED (Deputy Clerk CKP) Prisoner fee authorization form sent to prisoner. [12337850] (CKP) [Entered: 01/11/2022 03:04 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Clifton Hutchins Jr. opening brief due 03/11/2022. Appellees A. Johal, J. Katavich, A. Klang, J. Lewis, Bill Lockyer, Patel, Ramos, Sheheta and A. Youssef answering brief due 04/11/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12336033] (RT) [Entered: 01/10/2022 02:01 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.
