David Priest v. Bentley, et al
| DAVID PRIEST |
| BENTLEY, Primary Care Provider, MARTIN KUERSTEN, D. SANCHEZ and C. CRYER |
| 23-15342 |
| March 10, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (AWT, SRT and LHK) [12703120] (JFF) [Entered: 04/26/2023 09:36 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and LUCY H. KOH) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the district courts February 8, 2023 order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order disposing of fewer than all claims against all parties not immediately appealable unless district court directs entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). The district court docket reflects that this matter remains pending in the district court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12688781] (OC) [Entered: 04/04/2023 01:37 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant David Priest opening brief due 05/08/2023. Appellees Bentley, C. Cryer, Martin Kuersten and D. Sanchez answering brief due 06/06/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12671429] (ABT) [Entered: 03/10/2023 11:00 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.
