Jarvis, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Prescott
| JOSEPH E. JARVIS and HUIQIN DU |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PRESCOTT |
| COUNTY OF MOHAVE, STATE OF ARIZONA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, MOHAVE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DOUGLAS SCHUSTER, Mohave County Sheriff, WAYNE FARRIS, Detective, JOSE CARDENAS, Deputy, BRENDON TATRO, Deputy, NASIA SHRADER, Deputy, DAVID COFFIN, Lieutenant, DUSTIN FIELDS, Deputy, DEVIN GODFREY, Deputy, PATRICK RIDER, Deputy, MOHAVE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, MATTHEW SMITH, Mohave County Attorney, JOHN TORRES, JR., Mohave Deputy County Attorney, JULIA KETCHUM, Mohave Deputy County Attorney, JEFFREY HAWS, Mohave Deputy County Attorney, DAVID WAYT, Justice of the Peace, DAVE HUERTA, Justice of the Peace, MOHAVE COUNTY ADULT DETENTION FACILITY, UNKNOWN PARTIES, Whomever results responsible, KEVIN NOWICKI, Justice of the Peace, MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, DISTRICT JUDGE, United States District Judge and ROBERT VOLLBRACHT, Mohave County Adult Detention Center Captain |
| 25-3237 |
| May 21, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 19, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Reconsider Dispositive Order filed by Petitioner Joseph E. Jarvis.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed case Per DE#6 [Entered: 06/19/2025 06:33 AM] [Edited: 06/20/2025 04:20 PM] |
| Filing 7 PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC filed by Petitioner Joseph E. Jarvis.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed case Per DE#6] [Entered: 06/17/2025 11:01 AM] [Edited: 06/17/2025 02:30 PM] |
Filing 6
ORDER FILED. (Kim McLane WARDLAW, Gabriel P. SANCHEZ, Anthony D. JOHNSTONE) Petitioners have 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). The petition is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [Entered: 06/17/2025 10:24 AM]
|
| Filing 5 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Joseph E. Jarvis. [Entered: 05/28/2025 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 4 FEE PAID by Joe Jarvis - $600.00 - Receipt No. 100000471. [Entered: 05/21/2025 10:10 AM] |
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 05/21/2025 09:57 AM] |
| 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 5/20/2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-3237 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. Attorneys should consider the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for assistance. [Entered: 05/21/2025 09:55 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Huiqin Du, Petitioner Joseph E. Jarvis. [Entered: 05/21/2025 09:53 AM] |
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.