Gregory v. State of Arizona, et al.
| AZ EYMAN LIBRARIAN |
| JASON DARNELL GREGORY |
| STATE OF ARIZONA, CHARLES L RYAN, Director of ADOC, Unknown THOMPSON, named as Mr. Thompson, Complex Warden at Eyman Complex, UNKNOWN SHY, named as CO III Shy, Disciplinary Proceedings at Eyman Complex, UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Non-Disclosed Officer, Control Room Officer working @ SMU1 pod 1-A at Eyman Complex, UNKNOWN SANCHEZ, Correctional Officer, MARIA PEJI, Control Room Officer, previously named as Unknown Control Room Officer Laos, defendant name substituted per doc [88], ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERTO GARCIA, Corrections Officer and GERALD THOMPSON, Eyman Complex Warden |
| 23-1855 |
| August 17, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 19, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 MANDATE ISSUED Bridget S. BADE, Kenneth K. LEE, Lawrence VANDYKE [Entered: 10/19/2023 09:49 AM] |
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. (Bridget S. BADE, Kenneth K. LEE, Lawrence VANDYKE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the orders challenged in the notice of appeal filed August 15, 2023 and amended notice of appeal filed September 6, 2023 are not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Medhekar v. United States Dist. Court, 99 F.3d 325, 326 (9th Cir. 1996) (discovery orders not immediately appealable); see also Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non-appealable order is itself not appealable). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [Entered: 09/27/2023 03:14 PM]
|
| Filing 4 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 3 by Appellant Jason Darnell Gregory is filed. Original and 0 copies. [Entered: 09/12/2023 09:59 AM] |
| Filing 3 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Jason Darnell Gregory. [Entered: 09/12/2023 09:58 AM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal No RT Opening Brief Due 10/16/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023, Appeal No RT Answering Brief Due 11/13/2023. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 08/17/2023 11:53 AM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:18-cv-01598-GMS-JZB has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-1855 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Counsel should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 08/17/2023 11:26 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.
