Davis v. Walker, et al.
| KENNARD LEE DAVIS |
| JAMES WALKER, SAMUEL MCALPINE, CHERYL BAKEWELL, NANCY DUNNE and ROBERT ALLEN HAYNES |
| 26-1857 |
| March 26, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 26, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 PREFILING REVIEW DOCKETING NOTICE. This case has been opened and assigned the Ninth Circuit case number 26-1857. This case is subject to a pre-filing review order entered in case number 17-80236, and will be reviewed by the Court to determine whether it will be permitted to proceed. [Entered: 03/26/2026 04:58 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:10-cv-02139-TLN-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 26-1857 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: 03/26/2026 04:56 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.
