Marin v. Carroll, et al.
| MEL M. MARIN |
| CONSTANCE CARROLL, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, CARLOS O. TURNER CORTEZ, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, CRAIG MILGRIM, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, MARY GRAHAM, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, GEYSIL ARROYO, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, MARIA NIETO SENOUR, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, BERNIE RHINERSON, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, MARSHA GABLE, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, LINDA WOODS, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, CHERYL BARNARD, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, WESLEY LUNDBURG, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, PAMELA LUSTER, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, HENRY CEN, ANDREW LOWE, BURAK CEBECIOGLU, Trustee, In Their Official and Personal Capacities, RICKY SHABAZZ and SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT |
| 25-3229 |
| May 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 7, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Clarification of Non-Dispositive Order filed by Appellant Mel M. Marin. [Entered: 10/08/2025 09:29 AM] |
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. Ryan D. NELSON, Jennifer SUNG, Holly A. THOMAS This court has reviewed the May 14, 2025 and June 2, 2025 notices of appeal and the district court record pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in appeal No. 08-80081. Appeal No. 25-3229 will be permitted to proceed. The appeal transcript order is due October 14, 2025. The appeal transcript is due November 13, 2025. The parties shall designate and, if necessary, cross-designate the transcripts pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 10-3. The pro se opening brief is due December 23, 2025. The answering brief is due January 22, 2026. The optional pro se reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. Appellant is not required to submit excerpts of record. If appellant does not submit excerpts, appellees must submit all documents cited in the pro se opening brief or otherwise required by the rules. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1. The clerk will serve a case opening packet on appellant. [Entered: 09/26/2025 12:23 PM]
|
| Filing 3 Amended Notice of Appeal Received. [Entered: 06/04/2025 12:58 PM] |
| Filing 2 PREFILING REVIEW DOCKETING NOTICE. This case has been opened and assigned the Ninth Circuit case number {08-80081}. This case is subject to a pre-filing review order entered in case number 25-3229, and will be reviewed by the Court to determine whether it will be permitted to proceed. [Entered: 05/20/2025 03:50 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:21-cv-01453-JO-DEB 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 25-3229 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: 05/20/2025 03:47 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.
