John Demos, Jr. v. Donald Holbrook, et al
| JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, Jr. |
| DONALD R. HOLBROOK, ISRB, STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL and KING COUNTY CHIEF PROSECUTOR |
| 22-35990 |
| November 28, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD R. CLIFTON) : This court has reviewed the notice of appeal filed November 17, 2022 in the above-referenced district court docket pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in docket No. 92-80350. Because the appeal is so insubstantial as to not warrant further review, it will not be permitted to proceed. See In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2007). Appeal No. 22-35990 is therefore dismissed. This order, served on the district court for the Western District of Washington, will constitute the mandate of this court. No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions will be entertained. DISMISSED. [12608372] (RT) [Entered: 12/12/2022 02:54 PM] |
| 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. [12597110] [12597110]--[Edited 11/28/2022 by RT] (RT) [Entered: 11/28/2022 03:02 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.
