Barry Blakeley v. Daniel Gunderson, et al
| BARRY BLAKELEY |
| DANIEL G. GUNDERSON, CHRISTOPHER RAFFERTY, TIMOTHY WOLFF, THOMAS V. JAMGOCHIAN and STATE OF ALASKA |
| 23-35061 |
| January 25, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| BARRY BLAKELEY V. DANIEL GUNDERSON, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Barry Blakeley letter dated 03/11/2023 re: request for docket sheet. Paper filing deficiency: None. (sent docket sheet) [12673073] (RL) [Entered: 03/13/2023 02:49 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed original and 6 copies of Appellant Barry Blakeley opening brief of 23 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 03/11/2023. [12672894] (KT) [Entered: 03/13/2023 01:46 PM] |
| Filing 3 Sent Appellant a copy of the FRAP and Ninth Circuit rules in response to the Form 29 request filed on 02/06/2023. [12647521] (JR) [Entered: 02/06/2023 05:49 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Barry Blakeley letter dated 01/30/2023 re: Request for Rules Book. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12647486] (RL) [Entered: 02/06/2023 04:57 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Barry Blakeley opening brief due 03/27/2023. Appellees Daniel G. Gunderson, Thomas V. Jamgochian, Christopher Rafferty, State of Alaska and Timothy Wolff answering brief due 04/27/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12638733] (RT) [Entered: 01/25/2023 03:43 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
