Harmony Nason v. USHUD, et al
| HARMONY NASON |
| U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, MARCIA L. FUDGE, Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and DOES, 1 to 50 |
| 22-35868 |
| November 1, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Civil Rights Accommodations |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and WILLIAM A. FLETCHER) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the September 28, 2022 order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1986) (denial of appointment of counsel in civil case is not appealable); see also Green v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 541 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir. 1976) (district court must be of the opinion that the criteria of 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) are met; court of appeals is without authority to assume an interlocutory appeal unilaterally under 1292(b)). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12582930] (JBS) [Entered: 11/08/2022 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Harmony Nason opening brief due 12/27/2022. Appellees Does, Marcia L. Fudge and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development answering brief due 01/26/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12578168] (JBS) [Entered: 11/01/2022 02:53 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.
