Prakash Narayan v. Brown, et al
| PRAKASH NARAYAN, pro se |
| BROWN, Judge, JUDY HESREY, Judge, KELVIN CULHAN, Judge, RAY PJ, Judge, TANI SKAUYE, Chief Justice, RABINDRA PRASAD, DBA Prasads Chiropractor and DAVID CROWDIS |
| 23-16037 |
| July 26, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Appellants response to this courts August 3, 2023 contains a blank cover sheet labeled Exhibit B but does not include any documents following the cover sheet. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant may update the response by filing a supplement with the exhibit he wishes the court to consider. If appellant does not update the response, the court will treat appellants August 11, 2023 response as the complete response to the order to show cause. Briefing remains stayed pending further order of the court. [12773854] (CKP) [Entered: 08/14/2023 04:04 PM] |
| Filing 4 COURT DELETED INCORRECT ENTRY. Notice about deletion sent to case participants registered for electronic filing. Correct Entry: [ # 3 ]. Original Text: Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Prakash Narayan answer to Miscellaneous petition. Date of service: 08/11/2023. [12772795] [23-16037] (Narayan, Prakash) [Entered: 08/11/2023 02:19 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Prakash Narayan response to Court order dated 08/03/2023. Date of service: 08/11/2023. [12772790] [23-16037] --[COURT UPDATE: Attached exhibit and updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 08/11/2023 by TYL] (Narayan, Prakash) [Entered: 08/11/2023 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on June 16, 2023. Appellants notice of appeal was filed in the district court on July 20, 2023. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). The record does not reflect that appellant has filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen the time for appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and 26(b)(1). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant does 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. [12767657] (CKP) [Entered: 08/03/2023 02:27 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Prakash Narayan, pro se opening brief due 09/18/2023. [12762824] (ABT) [Entered: 07/26/2023 02:54 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.
