Carina Conerly, et al v. Sharif Tarpin, et al
| CARINA CONERLY, JAMES CONERLY, MARILYN TILLMAN-CONERLY and M. T., a minor |
| SHARIF R. TARPIN, KIANA TURNER, VEDA LYMOSE, AKA Veda Labeet, AKA Veda Sorrell, REGENCY PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MELISSA CLARK, TIMOTHY HAMMONS, RUDY PUENTE, TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HERON SCHOOL, MICHELLE COOKSEY, STEPHANIE SCHULZKUMP, KERRY HOUSE, MICHELLE JETT, NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALY, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, KATHERINE LESTER, COLLEEN M. GRAY, A. THOMPSON, Officer, L. CHIRBAS, Officer, ENRIKA JONES and KARA UEDA |
| 23-15297 |
| March 2, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANTS. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Carina Conerly, James Conerly, M. T. and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly opening brief due 05/04/2023. Appellees Aly, L. Chirbas, Melissa Clark, Michelle Cooksey, Colleen M. Gray, Timothy Hammons, Heron School, Kerry House, Michelle Jett, Enrika Jones, Katherine Lester, Veda Lymose, Natomas Unified School District, Rudy Puente, Regency Park Elementary School, Sacramento Police Department, Stephanie Schulzkump, Sharif R. Tarpin, A. Thompson, Kiana Turner, Twin Rivers Unified School District and Kara Ueda answering brief due 06/05/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12665843] (RT) [Entered: 03/02/2023 11:23 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.
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.
