Kate Adams v. County of Sacramento, et al
| KATE ADAMS |
| COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO and SCOTT JONES, Sheriff |
| 23-15970 |
| July 7, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. [12776506] (CL) [Entered: 08/17/2023 06:11 PM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 08/17/2023, 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. (originally scheduled on 08/09/2023). [12765718] (CL) [Entered: 08/01/2023 10:33 AM] |
| Filing 3 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 08/09/2023, 11:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. See order for instructions and details. [12761559] (CL) [Entered: 07/25/2023 11:21 AM] |
| Filing 2 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Kate Adams Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/14/2023. Transcript ordered by 08/04/2023. Transcript due 09/05/2023. Appellant Kate Adams opening brief due 10/13/2023. Appellees County of Sacramento and Scott Jones answering brief due 11/13/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12750615] (RT) [Entered: 07/07/2023 12:16 PM] |
| Filing 1 Filed order (RYAN D. NELSON and PATRICK J. BUMATAY) in case no. 23-80042 on June 28/2023: The petition for permission to appeal is granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Within 14 days, petitioner must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d)(1). [12750610] (RT) [Entered: 07/07/2023 12:13 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.
