David Getzen v. Sampson, et al
| DAVID GETZEN |
| SAMPSON, Sgt. YCSO Officer, BARBY, Sgt. YCSO Officer, BAILY, Officer and BUON |
| 22-16531 |
| October 6, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed David Getzen's pro se notice of change of address "pending." Paper filing deficiency: None. [12586703] [21-16437, 21-16870, 22-16531, 22-16535] (HH) [Entered: 11/14/2022 03:32 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant David Getzen motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 10/12/2022. [12571850] (HH) [Entered: 10/24/2022 03:59 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant David Getzen motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 10/14/2022. [12571848] (HH) [Entered: 10/24/2022 03:58 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant David Getzen opening brief of 13 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 10/14/2022. Major deficiency: case is closed. [12571720] (KT) [Entered: 10/24/2022 03:11 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MF) Appeal No. 22-16531 is dismissed as duplicative of closed appeal No. 20-17138. This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court for appeal No. 22-16531. [12562792] (WL) [Entered: 10/13/2022 02:50 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 David Getzen opening brief due 11/29/2022. [12557234] (OC) [Entered: 10/06/2022 10:37 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
