Mahmoud v. Navarrete, et al.
| MOHAMED ABDALLA MAHMOUD |
| JOSE NAVARRETE, Dismissed per #6; Added per #7 FAC, JEREMY SUMMERS, Dismissed per #6; Added per #7 FAC, SHELLEY, Dismissed per #6; Added per #7 FAC, ALBERT, Dismissed per #6; Added per #7 FAC, WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, Dismissed per #6, JENNIFER NASH, Dismissed per #6, BRICE, Dismissed per #6, MAN HALL, ANGEL ROBLES, Dismissed per #6; Added per #7 FAC, RICHARD LINFORD, Dismissed per #6; Added per #7 FAC, G. GARCIA, Dismissed per #6, D. EVERAGE, Dismissed per #6 and HAROLD WICKHAM, Dismissed per #6 |
| 25-8011 |
| December 22, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 MANDATE ISSUED Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard A. PAEZ, Holly A. THOMAS. The judgment of this Court, entered 1/27/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 02/18/2026 08:51 AM] |
Filing 6
ORDER FILED. (Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard A. PAEZ, Holly A. THOMAS) A district courts dismissal order is not final or immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Silberkleit v. Kantrowitz, 713 F.2d 433, 434 (9th Cir. 1983) (order granting or denying a stay of proceedings is not generally a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291). This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the December 2, 2025 order did not dispose of all claims as to all parties. This appeal is therefore dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6(b) (if court determines it lacks jurisdiction, court may dismiss appeal without notice or further proceedings). All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [Entered: 01/27/2026 02:14 PM]
|
| Filing 5 SUPPLEMENT to MOTION to Extend Time to File Motion (DE 4) filed by Appellant Mohamed Abdalla Mahmoud. [Entered: 01/22/2026 11:57 AM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Extend Time to File Motion filed by Appellant Mohamed Abdalla Mahmoud. [Entered: 01/15/2026 03:00 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Appellant Mohamed Abdalla Mahmoud. [Entered: 01/15/2026 02:58 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 2/2/2026. For appeal no. 25-8011, 3:24-cv-00604-MMD-CSD. 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: 12/22/2025 04:04 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:24-cv-00604-MMD-CSD 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 25-8011 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: 12/22/2025 03:57 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.
