Arthur Hooks v. Stephanie Lalonde, et al
| ARTHUR HOOKS |
| STEPHANIE LALONDE, MICHAEL ALLEN, MITCHELL LANDRY, BARACK OBAMA and COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT |
| 22-15082 |
| January 20, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Received Appellant Arthur Hooks notice of appeal. [12389943] (NAC) [Entered: 03/09/2022 07:16 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Arthur Hooks motion to remove and restrain. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/28/2022. [12386542] (DJV) [Entered: 03/04/2022 01:33 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Arthur Hooks motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/28/2022. [12386535] (DJV) [Entered: 03/04/2022 01:31 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Arthur Hooks motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/28/2022. [12386527] (DJV) [Entered: 03/04/2022 01:29 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Arthur Hooks opening brief of 8 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 02/28/2022. Major deficiency: case is closed. [12386207] (LA) [Entered: 03/04/2022 10:34 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, MARSHA S. BERZON and MARK J. BENNETT) 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 Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007) (transfer orders under 28 U.S.C. 1406 are not directly appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent appellants notice of appeal also seeks relief by way of a petition for writ of mandamus, the petition is denied because it does not demonstrate that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977); see also NBS Imaging Sys., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of Cal., 841 F.2d 297, 298 (9th Cir. 1988) (court of appeals may review by mandamus an order transferring a case to a district court in another circuit). DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. [12379456] (OC) [Entered: 02/24/2022 03:34 PM] |
| 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 Arthur Hooks opening brief due 03/24/2022. [12345688] (RT) [Entered: 01/20/2022 10:45 AM] |
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.
