Sharrod Moten v. Pedro Pulido, et al
| SHARROD MOTEN |
| PEDRO PULIDO, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, AKA Padro Pulido, MARICRUZ WERNER, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, ROSA IBARRA, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, JAMARKUS MANGUM, individual capacity, CONRAD SMITH, GORGE GONZALES, Correctional officer, individual capacity, AKA Gorge Gonzalez, RAYBON JOHNSON, Warden, JASMINE MCDUFFY, Correctional officer, individual capacity, BRYAN PEREZ, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, AKA Brian Perez, GOP ACEVEDO, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, JILBERT MAKARADE, DAVID CALDERON, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, CRAIG GREEN, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, SHELDON SMITH, MARCUS MOZ, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, GAREN SHIMARIAN, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, SALCEDO, DOE MILLER, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, AKA Miller, BRAINARD, OCHOA, First Name Unknown, Captain, individual capacity, ROSAS, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, AKA Rosas, KING, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, GONZALEZ, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, MELENDREZ, CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE, CERILLO, APPEALS COORDINATOR, DOES, 1-40, SAUCEDO, First Name Unknown, Lieutenant AIMS, individual capacity, SMITH, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, GREEN, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, LEPE, First Name Unknown, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, OLOWASAGBA, First Name Unknown, LVN, individual capacity and CALDERON, First Name Unknown, Deputy, Correctional Officer, individual capacity |
| 23-55444 |
| May 16, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 3, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Sharrod Moten motion to reconsider. Deficiencies: Mandate issued. [12749364] (JFF) [Entered: 07/05/2023 05:15 PM] |
| Filing 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (JHN, MTF and JS) [12743547] (JFF) [Entered: 06/27/2023 08:36 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND and JENNIFER SUNG) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the magistrate judges February 28, 2023 report and recommendation challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable, and the district court has not issued any other final or appealable orders. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993) (magistrate judges findings and recommendations not appealable; premature appeal not cured by subsequent entry of final judgment by district court). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12728843] (OC) [Entered: 06/05/2023 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Sharrod Moten opening brief due 07/07/2023. Appellees Gop Acevedo, Appeals Coordinator, Brainard, Calderon, David Calderon, Cerillo, Classification Committee, Does, Gorge Gonzales, Gonzalez, Green, Craig Green, Rosa Ibarra, Raybon Johnson, Warden, King, Lepe, Jilbert Makarade, Jamarkus Mangum, Jasmine McDuffy, Melendrez, Doe Miller, Marcus Moz, Ochoa, Olowasagba, Bryan Perez, Pedro Pulido, Rosas, Salcedo, Saucedo, Garen Shimarian, Smith, Conrad Smith, Sheldon Smith and Maricruz Werner answering brief due 08/07/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12717073] (JMR) [Entered: 05/16/2023 03:19 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.
