Rogers v. Howard, et al.
| DARYL ROGERS |
| CARDIN, Sgt., HERRINGTON, Facility Medical Director (FMD) at SCCC, HAYNES, Superintendent, DAHNE, Grievance Coordinator, QUINN, C/O, FREDRICK, Grievance Program Manager (GPM) at DOC, STEPHEN SINCLAIR, Secretary, BREWER, Grievance Coordinator, LIGHT, PA, JOLLY, CUS, CHERRY, CUS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, GORDON, RN3, FITHIAN, Deputy Director, HOWARD, Sgt., STATE OF WASHINGTON, YOUNG, Doctor (DR) at SCCC, JOHN/JANE DOE, Assistant Chief Medical Officer (AMCO) of DOC, ARIAS, CC2, LYSTAD, PA, STAFFORD CREEK CORRECTIONS CENTER, KLEMME, ADA Compliance Manager, L'HEREAUX, Corrections Specialist 3 (CS3) at SCCC, JOHN/JANE DOE, Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of DOC, FLYNN, Grievance Program Administrator (GPA) at DOC and SCOTT RUSSELL, Deputy Director (DD) of DOC |
| 24-7330 |
| December 5, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 17, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 SURREPLY to Reply to Response to Court Order (DE 5) filed by Appellant Daryl Rogers. [Entered: 01/17/2025 04:06 PM] |
| Filing 5 REPLY to Response to Court Order (DE 4) filed by Appellee Howard, Appellee Jolly, Appellee Arias, Appellee Cardin, Appellee Quinn, Appellee Lystad, Appellee Light, Appellee Gordon, Appellee Dahne, Appellee Brewer, Appellee Cherry, Appellee Klemme, Appellee Stephen Sinclair, Appellee Haynes, Appellee Fithian, Appellee Stafford Creek Corrections Center, Appellee Department of Corrections of the State of Washington, Appellee State of Washington, Appellee Herrington, Appellee L'Hereaux, Appellee Fredrick, Appellee Flynn, Appellee Scott Russell. [Entered: 01/07/2025 03:59 PM] |
| Filing 4 RESPONSE to Court Order (DE 3) filed by Appellant Daryl Rogers. [Entered: 12/30/2024 04:39 PM] |
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on October 21, 2024. Appellants notice of appeal was dated and served on November 15, 2024, and filed in the district court on December 2, 2024. Although appellant is a prisoner, it appears that the notice of appeal was mailed from outside of appellants institution, not through the institutions legal mail system. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed or delivered to prison officials for mailing by the institutions legal mail system within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (notice of appeal deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court if appellant complies with the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (If an institution has a system designed for legal mail, an inmate confined there must use that system to receive the benefit of this Rule 4(c)(1).). The record does not reflect that appellant has filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen the time for appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and 26(b)(1). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [Entered: 12/06/2024 03:10 PM]
|
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 1/14/2025, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 2/13/2025. For appeal no. 24-7330, 3:21-cv-05311-BJR. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 12/05/2024 12:46 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:21-cv-05311-BJR has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 24-7330 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 Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 12/05/2024 12:44 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.
