Peter Reed v. C. Muhammed, et al
| PETER J. REED |
| C. MUHAMMED, RAMOS III, D. ROUSE, J. GAGLIARDINI, J. LANDWEHR, J. BEARD and DOES, 1-3 |
| 23-55764 |
| September 8, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
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 3 MANDATE ISSUED. (BSB, KKL and LVD) [12812133] (RL) [Entered: 10/19/2023 09:09 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (BRIDGET S. BADE, KENNETH K. LEE and LAWRENCE VANDYKE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the August 15, 2023 and August 30, 2023 orderorders challenged in the notices of appeal filed on August 31, 2023 are not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Branson v. City of Los Angeles , 912 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non appealable order is itself not appealable) appealable); McCright v. Santoki, 976 F.2d 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 1992) (order denying plaintiffs motion for Rule 11 sanctions against opposing counsel can be effectively reviewed on appeal from final judgment in underlying action). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12799944] (JBS) [Entered: 09/27/2023 01:06 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Peter J. Reed opening brief due 10/30/2023. Appellees J. Beard, Does, J. Gagliardini, J. Landwehr, C. Muhammed, Ramos III and D. Rouse answering brief due 11/29/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12789055] (ABT) [Entered: 09/08/2023 01:32 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.
