Timothy Sadler v. Dutton, et al
| TIMOTHY RAY SADLER |
| DUTTON, Sheriff, DAVE, Jail Dr., BENEFIS SPECTRUM MEDICAL, INC., S. MCCARTHY, LEO DUTTON, DAVID ALLEN RAU, JASON GRIMMIS, ALLEN HUGH, SCOTT FERGUSON, BRIAN MERRIT, TROY CHRISTENSEN, SEAN WHITTMIER, CLAIR SWAIN, D. MAYNARD, BECKY HAWTHORNE, JOHN LOONEY, TIM ARNALD, JUSTIN BERGER, RAE FORESETH, KEITH GREANEY and L. CRAMMER |
| 22-35117 |
| February 9, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): Appellants motion [ # 3 ] for voluntary dismissal is denied. If appellant wishes to voluntarily dismiss this appeal, he will not be able to reinstate the appeal after expiration of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal. See United States v. Arevalo, 408 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th Cir. 2005). If appellant still wishes to voluntarily dismiss this appeal, within 21 days of this order appellant may file a renewed form motion for voluntary dismissal without alterations to the form. If a renewed motion is not filed, appellant remains obligated to comply with the February 10, 2022 order. The Clerk will send a form motion for voluntary dismissal to appellant along with this order. [12378458] (CKP) [Entered: 02/23/2022 05:07 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Timothy Ray Sadler motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/16/2022. [12377199] (DJV) [Entered: 02/23/2022 07:06 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. If the court dismisses the appeal as frivolous, this appeal may be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [12366853] (CKP) [Entered: 02/10/2022 03:24 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 Timothy Ray Sadler opening brief due 04/11/2022. [12365667] (RT) [Entered: 02/09/2022 04:06 PM] |
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.
