Michael Foster v. C. Crosby, et al
| MICHAEL BARKARRI FOSTER |
| C. CROSBY, (C.O.), J. PUENTE, (SGT), C. PARRY, (Capt.), S. WHITEMAN, (PT.), M. CONTRERAS, (SGT.) ;Officer, 8114P, D. STRAIN, (LT.) ;Sergeant, S. LEE, (CO.), C. VAN HORN, (PT.), M. COOK, (PT.), D. EADES, (C.O.), L. SULLENGER, (C.O.), M. SHAFFER, (C.O.), B. TOBBS, (C.O.), BELL, (A.W.), WARDEN, RAMEY, Lt., B. TUBBS and C. PURRY |
| 23-15372 |
| March 14, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (AWT, SRT and LHK) [12699118] (QDL) [Entered: 04/20/2023 08:26 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 court has not issued any orders that are final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12684784] (JBS) [Entered: 03/29/2023 01:35 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Michael Barkarri Foster opening brief due 05/12/2023. Appellees Bell, M. Contreras, M. Cook, C. Crosby, D. Eades, S. Lee, C. Parry, J. Puente, C. Purry, Ramey, M. Shaffer, D. Strain, L. Sullenger, B. Tobbs, B. Tubbs, C. Van Horn, Warden and S. Whiteman answering brief due 06/12/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12673844] (ABT) [Entered: 03/14/2023 01:20 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.
