Bryan Bonham v. State of Nevada Ex Rel, et al
| BRYAN P. BONHAM |
| STATE OF NEVADA EX REL, NEVADA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, ex rel, CHARLES DANIELS, H. WICKHAM, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, V. JOHNSON, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, STEVE SISOLAK, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, AARON D. FORD, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, GARRY PICCININI, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, LARRY WUEST, D. BEQUETTE, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, D. DREESEN, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, J. CORRUJEDO, STACEY BARRETT, First Name added by SAC, ECF No. 123 also known as Barrett, QUINN, Sgt :Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, MARTINEZ, MUTUZIK, Lt. Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, GUSTAVO SANCHES, Lt., LARRY WEST, Termed by SAC, ECF No. 123, JACQUES GRAHAM, First Name added by SAC, ECF No. 123 also known as Grahm, WILLIAM GITTERE, Warden Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, JEREMY BEAN, Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, JULIE WILLIAMS, Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, RONALD OLIVER, Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, JAMES SCALLY, Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, STEWART, Sgt Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, MCKELLAN, Lt :Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, ASHCRAFT, Sr. Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, ORTIZ, C/O : Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, TAYLOR, C/O Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, HUGGINS, C/O Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, ALVEREZ, C/O Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, ABREGO, C/O Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, MONTOS, C/O Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, SACOVIA, C/O Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, VIZCARRA, C/O : Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, LEDINGHAM, Lt : Added by SAC, ECF No. 123, LISA MARIE GARCIA, Added by SAC, ECF No. 123 and L. TREADWELL, Added by SAC, ECF No. 123 |
| 23-15175 |
| February 8, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 21, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MANDATE ISSUED. (WCC, MDS and DAB) [12678224] (QDL) [Entered: 03/21/2023 09:36 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Bryan P. Bonham motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [12668718] (QDL) [Entered: 03/07/2023 09:42 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed original and 0 copies of Appellant Bryan P. Bonham opening brief of 29 pages (Informal: No). Served on 02/23/2023. (case is closed) [12668115] (KT) [Entered: 03/06/2023 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and DANIEL A. BRESS) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the January 20, 2023 order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (dismissal of complaint with leave to amend is not appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12662760] (JMR) [Entered: 02/27/2023 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Bryan P. Bonham opening brief due 04/10/2023. Appellees Abrego, Alverez, Ashcraft, Stacey Barrett, Jeremy Bean, D. Bequette, Barbara K. Cegavske, J. Corrujedo, Charles Daniels, D. Dreesen, Aaron D. Ford, Lisa Marie Garcia, William Gittere, Jacques Graham, Huggins, V. Johnson, Ledingham, Martinez, McKellan, Montos, Mutuzik, Nevada Dept of Corrections, Ronald Oliver, Ortiz, Garry Piccinini, Quinn, Sacovia, Gustavo Sanches, James Scally, Steve Sisolak, State of Nevada Ex Rel, Stewart, Taylor, L. Treadwell, Vizcarra, Larry West, H. Wickham, Julie Williams and Larry Wuest answering brief due 05/08/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12649216] (ABT) [Entered: 02/08/2023 02:32 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
