Debbie Baize v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of C
| DEBBIE BAIZE |
| U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |
| 22-55271 |
| March 15, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Americans w/Disabilities Act-Othr |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 9, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Filed Appellant Debbie Baize additional documents in support of case. Dated 05/05/2022. Paper filing deficiency: Case closed. [12442009] (RL) [Entered: 05/09/2022 03:37 PM] |
| Filing 9 Filed order (RICHARD A. PAEZ, JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and PAUL J. WATFORD) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the March 14, 2022 notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days after the district courts judgment entered on December 17, 2021, or the post-judgment order entered on January 7, 2022. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(b); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [12427401] (JBS) [Entered: 04/21/2022 09:43 AM] |
| Filing 3 Streamlined request by Appellant Debbie Baize to extend time to file the brief is not approved because the Opening Brief has been filed. [12407775] (JN) [Entered: 03/29/2022 03:06 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Appellant Debbie Baize letter dated 03/23/2022 re: Request for copy of rules and docket sheet. Paper filing deficiency: None. (Sent appellant copy of rules and docket sheet.) [12407820] (QDL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 03:19 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Debbie Baize motion for appointment of counsel, to waive filing fees and to extend any deadlines. Deficiencies: None. [12407814] (QDL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 03:18 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Debbie Baize motion for extension of time. Deficiencies: None. [12407807] (QDL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Debbie Baize motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [12407798] (QDL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Debbie Baize motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [12407793] (QDL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 03:13 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed original and 0 copies of Appellant Debbie Baize opening brief of 8 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 03/23/2022. [12406715] (SML) [Entered: 03/28/2022 04:01 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEE. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Debbie Baize opening brief due 05/13/2022. [12395081] (JMR) [Entered: 03/15/2022 11:50 AM] |
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.
| Search for this case: Debbie Baize v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of C | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: DEBBIE BAIZE | |
| Represented By: | Debbie Baize |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
