John Demos, Jr. v. Donald Holbrook, et al
| JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr. |
| DONALD HOLBROOK, WSP Superintendent, JULIE MARTIN, KECIA L. RONGEN, ROBERT HERZOG, GEORGE A. MARLTON, LYNN CLARK, KAREN FORSS, WILLIAM FRANK JOHN SMITH, MANUEL LOUIS SANTANA, GARY PIERCE, ROCHELLE STEPHENS, STEVE SINCLAIR, JAY ROBERT INSLEE, ROBERT FERGUSON, BETH SHUBACH, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE |
| 22-35455 |
| June 9, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and DANIEL P. COLLINS) This court has reviewed the notice of appeal filed May 16, 2022 in the above-referenced district court docket pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in docket No. 92-80350. To the extent the May 16, 2022 notice of appeal seeks to challenge the district courts July 30, 2021 judgment, this appeal is duplicative of closed appeal No. 21-35674. To the extent the notice of appeal seeks to challenge the district courts post-judgment orders, the notice of appeal is untimely. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Accordingly, the appeal will not be permitted to proceed. See In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2007). Appeal No. 22-35455 is therefore dismissed. Appellants notice of appeal includes an alternative request for a writ of mandamus. Because appellant has not demonstrated that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, it will not be permitted to proceed as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977); In re Thomas, 508 F.3d at 1227. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, or any other submissions will be filed or entertained. This order, served on the district court for the Eastern District of Washington, will constitute the mandate of this court. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. [12491772] (OC) [Entered: 07/12/2022 11:39 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. This appeal is subject to a pre-filing review order in case number 92-80350. The appeal will be reviewed by the Court to determine whether it will be allowed to proceed. No briefing schedule will be set until/unless the Court determines that the appeal should be allowed to proceed. [12467459] (RT) [Entered: 06/09/2022 11:39 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.
