Quincetta Cargill v. USA, et al
| QUINCETTA Y. CARGILL |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOSEPH R BIDEN, President of the United States of America, KAMALA D. HARRIS, Vice President of the United States of America, R. DAVID PROCTOR, United States District Court Judge, JOHN G. CAMP, Assistant United States Attorney, M. BLAKE MILNER, Assistant United States Attorney, JASON WARD, Criminal Investigator, United States Internal Revenue Service and UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE |
| 23-35185 |
| March 15, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Quincetta Y. Cargill motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/02/2023. [12697763] (BJK) [Entered: 04/18/2023 12:49 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Quincetta Y. Cargill motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 04/02/2023. [12697759] (BJK) [Entered: 04/18/2023 12:45 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Quincetta Y. Cargill response that appeal should go forward. Served on 04/11/2023. [12697744] (BJK) [Entered: 04/18/2023 12:37 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. If the court dismisses the appeal as frivolous, this appeal may be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk will serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [12690738] (CKP) [Entered: 04/06/2023 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 03/28/2023 revoking IFP status. [12684067] (BJK) [Entered: 03/28/2023 05:43 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [12675300] (CKP) [Entered: 03/16/2023 10:16 AM] |
| 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 Quincetta Y. Cargill opening brief due 05/12/2023. [12674959] (JBS) [Entered: 03/15/2023 04:26 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.
