Blandino v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al.
| KIM BLANDINO |
| LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Sheriff JOSEPH LOMBARDO, KENNETH MEAD, Detective and MICHAEL FEDERICO, ATTORNEY, Esq. |
| 25-6488 |
| October 15, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 8, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 26
ORDER FILED. The motion (Docket Entry No. 25) for an extension of time to respond to the March 4, 2026 order is granted. The response is due May 8, 2026. [Entered: 04/08/2026 03:17 PM] [Edited: 04/10/2026 10:35 AM]
|
| Filing 25 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Court Order filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 04/08/2026 10:45 AM] |
| Filing 24 RESPONSE to Motion to Dismiss (DE 20) filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 03/05/2026 09:09 AM] |
|
Filing 23
ORDER FILED. It appears that this appeal may be frivolous. If the appeal is frivolous, the court will deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days, appellant must: (1) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous, OR (2) file a motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). If appellant files a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous, or any other response other than a motion to dismiss, the court will determine whether the appeal is frivolous. If it is frivolous, the appeal will be dismissed. If it is not frivolous, the appeal will proceed. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellees may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. Briefing is stayed. If appellant does not respond to this order, the court may dismiss this appeal without further notice. The clerk will serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, and (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward. [Entered: 03/04/2026 12:33 PM]
|
| Filing 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [Entered: 02/26/2026 01:47 PM] |
| Filing 22 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed EX PARTE and UNDER SEAL by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 02/26/2026 04:16 PM] |
| Filing 21 MOTION to File Document Under Seal and Sealed Document Submitted for Filing filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 02/26/2026 04:13 PM] |
|
Filing 19
ORDER FILED. Appellant has not responded to the courts December 1, 2025, order directing appellant to pay the $605 fees for this appeal to the district court and file proof of payment in this court or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court will give appellant one final opportunity. If appellant does not comply with the courts December 1, 2025, order within 21 days of this order, the appeal will be dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. Briefing is suspended and all motions are held in abeyance pending resolution of this order. [Entered: 02/04/2026 12:01 PM]
|
| Filing 18 RESPONSE to Motion to Withdraw Party Filing (DE 15) filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 01/27/2026 03:05 PM] |
| Filing 17 REPLY to Response to Motion to Remand (DE 12) filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 01/26/2026 10:12 AM] |
| Filing 16 REPLY to Response to Motion for Appointment of Counsel (DE 11) filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 01/26/2026 10:11 AM] |
| Filing 15 MOTION to Withdraw Party Filing filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [Entered: 01/14/2026 02:00 PM] |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Extend Time to Reply to Response to Motion filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 01/08/2026 01:08 PM] |
| Filing 13 MOTION to Reconsider Nondispositive Order filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [COURT ENTERED FILING to refile PDF originally filed in DE 11 & 12.] [Entered: 12/30/2025 01:39 PM] [Edited: 12/31/2025 09:26 AM] |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE to Motion to Remand (DE 10) filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [COURT UPDATE: Attached correct PDF.] [Entered: 12/30/2025 01:25 PM] [Edited: 12/31/2025 09:26 AM] |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE to Motion for Appointment of Counsel (DE 9) filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [COURT UPDATE: Attached correct PDF.] [Entered: 12/30/2025 01:23 PM] [Edited: 12/31/2025 09:28 AM] |
| Filing 10 MOTION to Remand filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 12/22/2025 02:54 PM] |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 12/22/2025 02:51 PM] |
|
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. Appellees motion (Docket Entry No. 6, 7) to reconsider the November 4, 2025 order staying appellate proceedings is granted. The stay of proceedings is lifted and this appeal will proceed. The fees for this appeal are overdue. Within 21 days, appellant must pay $605 to the district court and file proof of payment in this court or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If appellant does not do so, the court will dismiss this appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The opening brief is due December 8, 2025. The answering brief is due January 7, 2026. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. The clerk will serve Form 4 on appellant. [Entered: 12/01/2025 09:50 AM] [Edited: 12/01/2025 09:54 AM]
|
| Filing 7 SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Reconsider Nondispositive Order (DE 6) filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [Entered: 11/17/2025 05:46 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Reconsider Nondispositive Order filed by Appellee Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Appellee Kenneth Mead. [Entered: 11/07/2025 02:34 PM] |
| Filing 5 MAIL RETURNED. DE 2 addressed to Appellant Kim Blandino. Action taken: resending to 441 N. 16th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101. [Entered: 11/07/2025 12:20 PM] |
|
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. Appellants motion (Docket Entry No. 3) to stay proceedings is granted. Within 35 days after this order, appellant must file a report on the status of the settlement proceedings. Briefing is stayed. [Entered: 11/04/2025 10:18 AM]
|
| Filing 3 MOTION to Stay Proceedings in this Court filed by Appellant Kim Blandino. [Entered: 10/30/2025 11:38 AM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 11/24/2025, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 12/24/2025. For appeal no. 25-6488, 2:22-cv-00562-GMN-MDC. 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: 10/15/2025 10:31 AM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:22-cv-00562-GMN-MDC 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 25-6488 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: 10/15/2025 10:24 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.
