Swartz v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
| JESSE FRANKLIN SWARTZ and Franklin Wright |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 25-3907 |
| June 23, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 6, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 TERMINATED participation of Counsel for Real Party in Interest Donovan Miguel McKendrick, representing Real Party in Interest United States of America. [Entered: 08/06/2025 04:48 PM] |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Counsel filed by Donovan Miguel McKendrick. Counsel withdrawing on behalf of other attorney(s): No [[-]]. Party proceeding without counsel: No. [-]. [Entered: 08/06/2025 04:06 PM] |
| Filing 13 STATUS REPORT filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [COURT ENTERED FILING to correct DE 12.] [Entered: 08/05/2025 09:54 AM] |
| Filing 12 DEFECTIVE---Correction to Counsel Listing in Published Opinion filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [Wrong filing type used, correct entry is DE 13.] [Entered: 08/05/2025 09:40 AM] [Edited: 08/05/2025 09:55 AM] |
| Filing 11 Document received in this closed case after court order stating that no further filings will be entertained. Order and docket sheet sent to filer. [Entered: 07/28/2025 01:32 PM] |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Delay filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [Entered: 07/28/2025 12:22 PM] |
| Filing 9 Correction to Counsel Listing in Published Opinion filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [No action necessary, no further filings order entered 7/22/25.] [Entered: 07/22/2025 01:04 PM] [Edited: 07/22/2025 02:27 PM] |
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. (Barry G. SILVERMAN, Kenneth K. LEE, Lawrence VANDYKE) 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). The petition is denied. The motion (Docket Entry No. 7) for a stay is denied. All other pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [Entered: 07/22/2025 10:12 AM]
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Stay Proceedings in this Court filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [Entered: 07/01/2025 01:02 PM] |
| Filing 6 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [Entered: 06/25/2025 01:57 PM] |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [Entered: 06/25/2025 01:50 PM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [Entered: 06/25/2025 01:46 PM] |
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 06/23/2025 04:30 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 6/23/2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-3907 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: 06/23/2025 04:28 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Jesse Franklin Swartz. [Entered: 06/23/2025 04:24 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.
