Faison v. Williams, et al.
| MATTHEW JAMES FAISON and Bishop Son |
| THESSDUS WILLIAMS, TERRI WILLIAMS, JEAN WILLIAMS and ERMA JEAN POWER |
| 25-7772 |
| December 10, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 23, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER FILED. John B. OWENS, Eric D. MILLER, Patrick J. BUMATAY This court has reviewed the December 1, 2025 notice of appeal and the district court record pursuant to the pre-filing review order entered in appeal No. 12-80207. The appeal lacks sufficient merit to proceed. See In re Thomas, 508 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2007). Appeal No. 25-7772 is therefore dismissed. This order, served on the district court for the Southern District of California, constitutes the mandate of this court. All pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained. [Entered: 03/23/2026 01:32 PM]
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. This case is subject to a pre-filing review order entered in case No. 12-80207, and will be reviewed by the court to determine whether it will be permitted to proceed. The December 16, 2025 order (Docket Entry No. 3) is vacated as issued in error. [Entered: 01/07/2026 03:00 PM]
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Matthew James Faison. [Entered: 01/04/2026 10:04 AM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. The district court has certified that this appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Within 35 days, appellant must: (1) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 the court dismisses the appeal as frivolous, this appeal may be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). 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, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. [Entered: 12/16/2025 04:35 PM]
|
| Filing 2 PREFILING REVIEW DOCKETING NOTICE. This case has been opened and assigned the Ninth Circuit case number 25-7772. This case is subject to a pre-filing review order entered in case number 12-80207, and will be reviewed by the Court to determine whether it will be permitted to proceed. [Entered: 12/10/2025 05:11 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:25-cv-02148-CAB-MMP 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 25-7772 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: 12/10/2025 05:06 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.
