Eduardo Vallejo v. CA DMV, et al
| EDUARDO ENRIQUE VALLEJO |
| CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STEVEN GORDON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Motor Vehicles, City of Glendale and CITY OF GLENDALE |
| 22-55120 |
| February 1, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Mr. Eduardo Enrique Vallejo. Date of service: 03/30/2022. [12408724] [22-55120] (Vallejo, Eduardo) [Entered: 03/30/2022 01:01 PM] |
| Filing 6 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 appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellee may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. 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. [12395275] (CKP) [Entered: 03/15/2022 01:52 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [12394458] (RR) [Entered: 03/14/2022 04:47 PM] |
| Filing 4 Received copy of District Court order filed on 03/11/2022. Revoking IFP status on appeal. [12393913] (RR) [Entered: 03/14/2022 01:15 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [12390216] (CKP) [Entered: 03/09/2022 10:35 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Eduardo Enrique Vallejo Unopposed Motion for appointment of pro bono counsel. Date of service: 02/01/2022. [12357619] [22-55120] (Vallejo, Eduardo) [Entered: 02/01/2022 02:06 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Eduardo Enrique Vallejo opening brief due 03/30/2022. Appellee California Department of Motor Vehicles answering brief due 04/29/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12357484] (HH) [Entered: 02/01/2022 01:05 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.
