Robert Bondick v. Cambridge Real Estate Services, et al
| ROBERT BONDICK |
| CAMBRIDGE REAL ESTATE SERVICES, HOMES FOR GOOD HOUSING AGENCY, ROBIN SPENCER, Apartment Manager for Carbridge Real Estate Services, VIRIAM K. KHALSA, Hearings Officer (Homes for Good Housing), JACOB FOX, Executive Director of Homes for Good and CHRISTI CAMP, Rent Assistance Supervisor of Homes for Good |
| 22-35689 |
| August 30, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN, SANDRA S. IKUTA and ERIC D. MILLER): A review of the record and appellants response to this courts September 1, 2022 order to show cause demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). The district courts judgment was entered on July 19, 2022. Appellants notice of appeal was due 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Haroutunian v. I.N.S., 87 F.3d 374, 376-377 (9th Cir. 1996) (three-day extension of time under Fed. R. App. P. 26(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) does not apply to filing of notice of appeal because filing deadline for notice of appeal is calculated from the date of entry of the order or judgment, not the date of service). Appellants notice of appeal was not filed in the district court until August 30, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1) (court of appeals may not extend time to file a notice of appeal except as authorized in Rule 4); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (court lacks authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirement of timely notice of appeal). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12568715] (AF) [Entered: 10/20/2022 11:05 AM] |
| Filing 4 Received Appellant Mr. Robert Bondick notice regarding cause for jurisdiction. [12539155] (NAC) [Entered: 09/13/2022 12:32 PM] |
Filing 3
Received copy of District Court order filed on 09/08/2022 ORDER. ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal IFP,[14] is DENIED. As noted in the Court's Opinion dated July 19, 2022, all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by issue and/or claim preclusion or the running of the relevant statutes of limitation. Because any appeal cannot clear those hurdles, the Court previously concluded any appeal would be frivolous and declined to grant Plaintiff leave to appeal IFP. ECF No. [10] and [7]. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to file a notice of appeal within the 30 day time period allowed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). Even with the additional three days allowed under rule 26(c), Plaintiff's notice of appeal, received by the clerk on August 30, 2022 comes several days too late. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. (No PDF attachment, text only order) [12536191] (RL) [Entered: 09/08/2022 01:43 PM]
|
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on July 19, 2022. Appellants notice of appeal was filed in the district court on August 30, 2022. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). The record does not reflect that appellant has filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen the time for appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and 26(b)(1). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12532196] (CKP) [Entered: 09/01/2022 04:53 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 Robert Bondick opening brief due 10/31/2022. [12529699] (RT) [Entered: 08/30/2022 01:36 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.
