Paul Salcido v. M. DiTomas, et al
| PAUL SALCIDO |
| M. DITOMAS, M. OSMAN, B. DHILLON and LIN |
| 22-16235 |
| August 15, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): A review of this courts docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must pay to the district court the $505.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Additionally, appellants notice of appeal does not specify which district court order he is challenging on appeal. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must file a statement clarifying which district court order is the subject of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). Failure to comply with this order will result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk will serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. [12557313] (CKP) [Entered: 10/06/2022 11:34 AM] |
| 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 Paul Salcido opening brief due 10/11/2022. Appellees B. Dhillon, M. DiTomas, Lin and M. Osman answering brief due 11/10/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12517362] (JMR) [Entered: 08/15/2022 03:51 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.
