Howard Jones Investments, LLC, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al.
| HOWARD JONES INVESTMENTS, LLC, LOWELLA OLDHAM, DOLLY LEEPER, ADA LEEPER, ERICKA WARD and ALONZO MEDLEY |
| CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, MATT ARMSTRONG, MICHAEL BENNER and SAM SOMERS, JR. |
| 26-1618 |
| March 18, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 14) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Optional Reply Brief due 9/28/2026. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. [Entered: 08/25/2026 02:18 PM]
|
| Filing 14 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Appellant Howard Jones Investments, LLC, Appellant Lowella Oldham, Appellant Dolly Leeper, Appellant Ada Leeper, Appellant Ericka Ward, Appellant Alonzo Medley. [Entered: 08/25/2026 01:39 PM] |
| Filing 13 CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief and Excerpts of Record submitted at DE 11, DE 12 by Appellee City of Sacramento, Appellee Matt Armstrong, Appellee Michael Benner, Appellee Sacramento Police Department, Appellee Sam Somers, Jr. are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 08/07/2026 08:25 AM] |
| Filing 12 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellee City of Sacramento, Appellee Sacramento Police Department, Appellee Matt Armstrong, Appellee Michael Benner, Appellee Sam Somers, Jr.. [Entered: 08/06/2026 11:03 PM] |
| Filing 11 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee City of Sacramento, Appellee Sacramento Police Department, Appellee Matt Armstrong, Appellee Michael Benner, Appellee Sam Somers, Jr.. [Entered: 08/06/2026 11:00 PM] |
|
Filing 10
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 9) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 8/6/2026. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. [Entered: 07/02/2026 01:39 PM]
|
| Filing 9 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Appellee City of Sacramento, Appellee Sacramento Police Department, Appellee Matt Armstrong, Appellee Michael Benner, Appellee Sam Somers, Jr.. [Entered: 07/02/2026 11:44 AM] |
| Filing 8 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 6 and Excerpts of Record submitted at DE 7 by Appellants are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 06/10/2026 12:42 PM] |
| Filing 7 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant Howard Jones Investments, LLC, Appellant Lowella Oldham, Appellant Dolly Leeper, Appellant Ada Leeper, Appellant Ericka Ward, Appellant Alonzo Medley. [Entered: 06/08/2026 11:03 PM] |
| Filing 6 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Howard Jones Investments, LLC, Appellant Lowella Oldham, Appellant Dolly Leeper, Appellant Ada Leeper, Appellant Ericka Ward, Appellant Alonzo Medley. [Entered: 06/08/2026 10:50 PM] |
| Filing 5 RELEASED FROM MEDIATION (text only). This case is released from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. [Entered: 04/08/2026 12:12 PM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 4/8/2026, 10:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. See order for instructions and details. [Entered: 03/24/2026 12:41 PM] |
| Filing 3 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant Howard Jones Investments, LLC, Appellant Lowella Oldham, Appellant Dolly Leeper, Appellant Ada Leeper, Appellant Ericka Ward, Appellant Alonzo Medley. 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: 03/23/2026 10:01 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 6/8/2026, Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 3/23/2026, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) 4/28/2026, Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) 3/30/2026, Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 7/7/2026. For appeal no. 26-1618, 2:15-cv-00954-DAD-SCR. 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: 03/18/2026 10:06 AM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:15-cv-00954-DAD-SCR 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 26-1618 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: 03/18/2026 10:03 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.
