Mitchell Garraway v. Jacquiline Ciufo, et al
| MITCHELL GARRAWAY |
| JACQUILINE CIUFO, K. MILLER and J. ZARAGOZA |
| 23-15482 |
| April 3, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Appellants Jacquiline Ciufo, K. Miller and J. Zaragoza response to Court order dated 04/25/2023. Date of service: 05/16/2023. [12716850] [23-15482] (Shaw, Weili) [Entered: 05/16/2023 12:59 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Appellants Jacquiline Ciufo, K. Miller and J. Zaragoza response opposing motion ([ # 4 ] Party Motion). Date of service: 04/27/2023. [12704316] [23-15482] (Shaw, Weili) [Entered: 04/27/2023 01:38 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal may not be final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (A district court order is . . . not appealable [under 1291] unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (citing Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981))); see also Pettibone v. Russell, 59 F.4th 449, 452-54 (9th Cir. 2023) (concluding that court had jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal to consider whether Bivens cause of action existed where appeal taken from denial of qualified immunity); Himmelreich v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 5 F.4th 653, 659 (6th Cir. 2021) ([W]here the defendant has failed to raise a timely defense of qualified immunity, we hold that an interlocutory appeal from a district court order allowing a Bivens damages action to proceed does not come within the confines of the collateral order doctrine.); Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that an order denying reconsideration of a non-appealable order is itself non-appealable). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall either move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, appellee may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants response to this order. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12702808] (JMR) [Entered: 04/25/2023 03:32 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of District Court order filed on 04/18/2023 and letter to district court served on April 6. [12697955] (BJK) [Entered: 04/18/2023 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellee Mitchell Garraway motion to dismiss the case. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/13/2023. [12697870] (BJK) [Entered: 04/18/2023 02:03 PM] |
| Filing 3 Added Attorney(s) Weili J. Shaw for party(s) Appellant K. Miller, Appellant J. Zaragoza and Appellant Jacquiline Ciufo, in case 23-15482. [12691236] (QDL) [Entered: 04/07/2023 11:53 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Weili Justin Shaw (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20530) for Appellants Jacquiline Ciufo, K. Miller and J. Zaragoza. Date of service: 04/07/2023. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12691171] [23-15482] (Shaw, Weili) [Entered: 04/07/2023 11:21 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLEE. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Jacquiline Ciufo, K. Miller and J. Zaragoza opening brief due 06/05/2023. Appellee Mitchell Garraway answering brief due 07/05/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12687537] (RT) [Entered: 04/03/2023 11:40 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.
