Jane Doe v. City of Concord, et al
JANE DOE |
CITY OF CONCORD, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, GUY SWANGER, TAMRA ROBERTS, CODY HARRISON, RENELLE-REY VALEROS, DIANA BECTON, CHRISTOPHTER WALPOLE, COLLEEN GLEASON, JILL RAVITCH, ANNE MASTERSON, LAURA PASSAGLIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA, CITY OF COTATI, BENNET KNIGHT and BAUDELIA GALLO |
22-15384 |
March 15, 2022 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other Civil Rights |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
JANE DOE V. CITY OF CONCORD, ET AL |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 Streamlined request by Appellant Jane Doe to extend time to file the brief is not approved because it is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. Briefing shall be reset as necessary upon the Courts disposition of the motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Docket [2]. See 9th Cir. R. 27-11. [12424704] (DLM) [Entered: 04/18/2022 04:12 PM] |
Filing 3 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [12420200] (CKP) [Entered: 04/13/2022 01:05 PM] |
Filing 2 Filed Appellant Jane Doe motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [12399118] (NAC) [Entered: 03/18/2022 12:02 PM] |
Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Jane Doe opening brief due 05/13/2022. Appellees City of Concord, et al. answering brief due 06/13/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12395155] (HH) [Entered: 03/15/2022 12:34 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.