Collins v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al.
| JIM COLLINS, Regent |
| ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, CLAIRE MILLER, DANIEL SADOWAY, husband, FRANS TAX, husband and wife, FRED DUVAL, Regent, CECILIA MATA, Regent, LYNDEL MANSON, Regent, ROBERT J. HERBOLD, Regent, LARRY EDWARD PENLEY, Regent, JESSICA PACHECO, DOUG GOODYEAR, Regent, GREGG BREWSTER, Regent, KATELYN REES, Student Regent, DAVID ZARAGOZA, Student Regent, KATIE HOBBS, Ex-Officio Regent Governor, TOM HORNE, Ex-Officio Regent Superintendent of Public Instruction, UNKNOWN PARTIES, John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, XYZ Corporations 1-10, ABC Partnerships 1-10, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, MARGARET J. PITTS, husband and wife, MARIE ELIZABETH TEEMANT, husband and wife, AMARTA SINGH, husband and wife and DUSTIN TRAN, husband and wife |
| 25-4716 |
| July 28, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 22, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. Appellant should address in the opening brief this courts jurisdiction over the orders he is challenging. Appellants request (Docket Entry No. 6) for guidance regarding appellate jurisdiction before he files the opening brief is denied. The opening brief is due January 26, 2026. The answering brief is due February 25, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. [Entered: 12/22/2025 11:50 AM]
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Jim Collins. [Entered: 10/15/2025 11:04 AM] |
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. The motion (Docket Entry No. 3) to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion (Docket Entry No. 4) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is denied as unnecessary. See 9th Cir. R. 27-11. The opening brief is due October 14, 2025. The answering brief is due November 13, 2025. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. [Entered: 09/15/2025 02:36 PM]
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Appellant Jim Collins. [Entered: 09/10/2025 07:42 AM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Appellant Jim Collins. [Entered: 08/12/2025 11:00 AM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 9/8/2025, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 10/6/2025. For appeal no. 25-4716, 4:25-cv-00010-RCC. 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: 07/28/2025 03:43 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 4:25-cv-00010-RCC 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 25-4716 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: 07/28/2025 03:28 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.
