Akerman v. United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas
| MARTIN AKERMAN |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS |
| HENRY J. KERNER, CAESAR GARDUNO, BRETT BASLER, DANIEL R. HOKANSON, KEN MCNEILL, WILLIAM POPPLER, BERNARD DOYLE, MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD and NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU |
| 25-5501 |
| August 29, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 25, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. (Ryan D. NELSON, Jennifer SUNG, Holly A. THOMAS) [Entered: 09/25/2025 02:19 PM] 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. All pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED.
|
| Filing 10 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. [Court entered filing, PDF originally from DE 8] [Entered: 09/04/2025 09:36 AM] |
| Filing 9 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed. [Court entered filing to correct DE 7] [Entered: 09/04/2025 09:28 AM] |
| Filing 8 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. [Court edit, PDF of motion in DE 10] [Entered: 09/04/2025 08:18 AM] [Edited: 09/04/2025 09:40 AM] |
| Filing 7 DEFECTIVE --- STATUS REPORT filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. [Wrong filing type used, corrected in DE 9] [Entered: 09/04/2025 07:46 AM] [Edited: 09/04/2025 09:29 AM] |
| Filing 6 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #[email protected] and include the case name and number in the subject line. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts. [Entered: 09/04/2025 07:40 AM] |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. [Entered: 09/02/2025 04:39 PM] |
| Filing 4 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. [Entered: 08/29/2025 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 08/29/2025 01:21 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 8/29/2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-5501 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: 08/29/2025 01:19 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Martin Akerman. [Entered: 08/29/2025 01:16 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.
