Ndizeye v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego
| DANIEL NDIZEYE |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO |
| Judge CAROLYN CAIETTI, in her official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego |
| 24-5043 |
| August 16, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. (Morgan B. CHRISTEN, John B. OWENS, Daniel A. BRESS) Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2021) (To determine whether a writ of mandamus should be granted, we weigh the five factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court.); Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, the petition is denied. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied as moot. DENIED. [Entered: 09/25/2024 01:52 PM]
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Daniel Ndizeye. [COURT UPDATE, to replace PDF with correct version.] [Entered: 08/19/2024 04:08 PM] [Edited: 08/20/2024 10:59 AM] |
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 08/16/2024 03:41 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 8/16/2024. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 24-5043 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: 08/16/2024 03:38 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Daniel Ndizeye. [Entered: 08/16/2024 03:36 PM] [Edited: 08/16/2024 03:39 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.
| Search for this case: Ndizeye v. United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Real party in interest: Judge CAROLYN CAIETTI, in her official capacity as Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: DANIEL NDIZEYE | |
| Represented By: | Daniel Ndizeye |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
