Murray Hooper v. Mark Brnovich, et al
| MURRAY HOOPER |
| MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, of Arizona and MICHAEL SULLIVAN, Interim Police Chief, City of Phoenix |
| 22-16764 |
| November 14, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 23
Filed Audio recording of oral argument. Note: Video recordings of public argument calendars are available on the Court's website, at # http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/ [12588564] (LW) [Entered: 11/16/2022 10:07 AM]
|
|
Filing 22
MANDATE ISSUED.(JHN, MJB and RDN) [12588275] (SVG) [Entered: 11/15/2022 07:13 PM]
|
|
Filing 21
Filed order (MARY H. MURGUIA, Chief Judge) On November 15, 2022, Hooper filed a petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc from the panels opinion affirming the district courts denial of Hoopers emergency motion for a TRO or a preliminary injunction. The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. Pursuant to the rules applicable to capital cases in which an execution date has been scheduled, a deadline was set by which any judge could request a vote on whether the panels November 15, 2022, opinion should be reheard en banc. No judge requested a vote within the time period. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing en banc is denied. En banc proceedings with respect to the panels opinion are concluded. The mandate shall issue forthwith. --[Edited 11/15/2022 by SVG to correct docket text re Judge name] [12588272] (SVG) [Entered: 11/15/2022 07:11 PM]
|
|
Filing 20
Filed (ECF) Appellee Mr. Mark Brnovich response to Combo PFR Panel and En Banc (ECF Filing), Combo PFR Panel and En Banc (ECF Filing) for panel and en banc rehearing, for panel and en banc rehearing (statistical entry). Date of service: 11/15/2022. [12588264]. [22-16764] (Chiasson, Laura) [Entered: 11/15/2022 06:45 PM]
|
|
Filing 19
Filed (ECF) Appellant Murray Hooper petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (from 11/15/2022 opinion). Date of service: 11/15/2022. [12588208] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/15/2022 04:56 PM]
|
|
Filing 18
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Any petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc from the panels November 15, 2022, opinion affirming the district courts denial of Hoopers emergency motion for a TRO or a preliminary injunction is due at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, November 15. The defendants may file an optional response to the petition on or before 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, November 15. [12588048] (AF) [Entered: 11/15/2022 03:47 PM]
|
|
Filing 17
FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, MARK J. BENNETT and RYAN D. NELSON) We deny Hoopers motion for stay of execution (docket entry no. [ # 7 ]) as moot. See Mitchell v. United States, 971 F.3d 1081, 1085 n.6 (9th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). VACATED and REMANDED. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [12588021] (MM) [Entered: 11/15/2022 03:35 PM]
|
|
Filing 16
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, MARK J. BENNETT and RYAN D. NELSON. [12587817] (BJK) [Entered: 11/15/2022 01:51 PM]
|
|
Filing 15
Filed order (JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, MARK J. BENNETT and RYAN D. NELSON): At oral argument, counsel should be prepared to discuss whether the district court correctly ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar it from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over Hoopers claims. [12587650] (AF) [Entered: 11/15/2022 11:58 AM]
|
|
Filing 14
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [ # 13 ] submitted by Mr. Mark Brnovich is filed. No paper copies are required at this time. [12587425] (SML) [Entered: 11/15/2022 10:05 AM]
|
|
Filing 13
Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellee Mr. Mark Brnovich. Date of service: 11/15/2022. [12587394] [22-16764] (Sparks, Jeffrey) [Entered: 11/15/2022 09:53 AM]
|
|
Filing 12
Filed clerk order: The replacement opening brief [ # 11 ] submitted by Murray Hooper is filed. No paper copies are required at this time. The previously filed opening brief at Docket Entry No. [5] is stricken. [12587142] (LA) [Entered: 11/14/2022 09:21 PM]
|
|
Filing 11
Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Murray Hooper. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12587139] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 09:14 PM]
|
|
Filing 10
COURT DELETED DUPLICATE ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [ # 6 ]. Original Text: Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Murray Hooper. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12587137] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 08:58 PM]
|
|
Filing 9
Filed (ECF) Errata to Opening Brief ([5] Brief Submitted for Review (ECF Filing)). Filed by Appellant Murray Hooper. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12587136] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 08:55 PM]
|
|
Filing 8
Filed clerk order: The opening brief [5] and excerpts of record [ # 6 ] submitted by Murray Hooper are filed. No paper copies are required at this time. [12587122] (LA) [Entered: 11/14/2022 08:21 PM]
|
|
Filing 7
Filed (ECF) Appellant Murray Hooper Motion for miscellaneous relief [FOR STAY OF EXECUTION]. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12587118] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 07:45 PM]
|
|
Filing 6
Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Murray Hooper. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12587113] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 07:43 PM]
|
|
Filing 5
STRICKEN PER ORDER [ # 12 ]. Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Murray Hooper. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12587111] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 07:42 PM]
|
|
Filing 4
Filed (ECF) Acknowledgment of hearing notice by Attorney Nicole Elyse List for Appellant Murray Hooper. Hearing in San Francisco on 11/15/2022 at 1:00 P.M. (Courtroom: 2). Filer sharing argument time: No. (Argument minutes: 20) Appearance in person or by video: I wish to appear by video. Special accommodations: NO. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. Date of service: 11/14/2022. [12586951] [22-16764] (List, Nicole) [Entered: 11/14/2022 05:13 PM]
|
|
Filing 3
Notice of Oral Argument on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 - 1:00 P.M. - Scheduled Location: Courtroom 2 - San Francisco CA. The hearing time is the local time zone at the scheduled hearing location, even if the argument is fully remote. View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case # here . NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may have the option to appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. Anyone appearing in person must review and comply with our Protocols for In Person Hearings, available # here . At this time, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion. The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some Judges will continue to appear remotely. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance. Please note however that if you do elect to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so. Be sure to review the # GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing, including when to be available (30 minutes before the hearing time) and when and how to submit additional citations (filing electronically as far in advance of the hearing as possible). If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the # ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in CM/ECF no later than 28 days before Tuesday, November 15, 2022. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [12586904] (AML) [Entered: 11/14/2022 04:49 PM]
|
|
Filing 2
Filed order (JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, MARK J. BENNETT and RYAN D. NELSON): On November 14, 2022, Murray Hooper appealed the district courts order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. The briefing schedule in the Ninth Circuit is set as follows. Hoopers opening brief and any motions are due by 9:00 p.m. in San Francisco on Monday, November 14, 2022. The States answering brief is due by 10:00 a.m. in San Francisco on Tuesday, November 15, 2022. Hoopers optional reply brief is due by 12:00 p.m. in San Francisco on Tuesday, November 15, 2022. No motions to extend time will be entertained. The panel will hear argument remotely on Tuesday, November 15, at 1:00 p.m. in San Francisco. The panel may consolidate this case for argument purposes with any other cases Hooper files in this court. The clerk shall contact counsel for the parties regarding remote appearances. [12586624] (AF) [Entered: 11/14/2022 03:05 PM]
|
|
Filing 1
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 Preliminary Injunction Appeal. [12586384] (HH) [Entered: 11/14/2022 01:44 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.
