Bennett v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento
| DAVID BENNETT |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO |
| MONROE DETENTION CENTER, YOLO COUNTY JAIL, WELL PATH DIRECTOR, ROSEMARY GLADDEN, OVIEDO, Detention Commander, Monroe Detention Center, SCHNIDER, Law Librarian, Monroe Detention Center and LANCASTER, Doctor, Monroe Detention Center |
| 24-3119 |
| May 15, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 15, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 05/15/2024 03:39 PM] |
| Filing 2 CASE OPENED. Your case opening documents have been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 5/14/2024. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 24-3119 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 #Appellate Practice Guide. Counsel should consider the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for assistance. [Entered: 05/15/2024 03:34 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner David Bennett. [Entered: 05/15/2024 03:30 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.
