Louis Branch v. D. Umphenour, et al
| N. GRANNIS, Chief, Inmate Appeals Branch, Sacramento, KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS and A. MANCINAS, Classification and Parole Representative, Avenal Prison |
| LOUIS BRANCH |
| D. UMPHENOUR, Building 250 Officer, Avenal Prison, L. SZALAI, C/O and J. ALVAREZ, C/O |
| 22-15047 |
| January 12, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (RCT, MBC and JHN) [12368967] (JFF) [Entered: 02/14/2022 09:26 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (RICHARD C. TALLMAN, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order disposing of fewer than all claims against all parties not immediately appealable unless district court directs entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). DISMISSED. [12347895] (WL) [Entered: 01/21/2022 03:48 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Louis Branch opening brief due 03/14/2022. Appellees J. Alvarez, L. Szalai and D. Umphenour answering brief due 04/11/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12338797] (OC) [Entered: 01/12/2022 12:15 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.
