Prasad v. County of San Mateo, et al.
| KEVIN B. PRASAD |
| COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CARLOS G. BOLANOS, MARK C. ROBBINS, JOHN W. MUNSEY, ALMA ZAMORA, KRISTINA BELL, JOHN KOVACH, San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Administrative Lieutenant, RICHARD CHEECHOV and Dietitian DENISE CHU, San Mateo County Correctional Health Services Dietician |
| 26-2833 |
| May 5, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 29, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 12 by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad is filed. Original and 0 copies. [Entered: 06/29/2026 11:09 AM] |
| Filing 12 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad. [Entered: 06/29/2026 11:09 AM] |
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. Barry G. SILVERMAN, Consuelo M. CALLAHAN The motions (Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 9) for an extension of time to file the opening brief are denied as unnecessary. See 9th Cir. R. 27-11. The motion (Docket Entry No. 6) for appointment of pro bono counsel is denied. The opening brief is due July 29, 2026. The answering brief is due August 31, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. Appellant is not required to submit excerpts of record. If appellant does not submit excerpts, appellee must submit all documents cited in the pro se opening brief or otherwise required by the rules. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1. [Entered: 06/22/2026 10:53 AM]
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER FILED. Paper Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 7) denied as unnecessary. It is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. Briefing shall be reset as necessary pending resolution of the motion for appointment of counsel (DE6). [Entered: 06/16/2026 09:29 AM]
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad. [Entered: 06/15/2026 05:29 PM] |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad. [Entered: 06/15/2026 05:27 PM] |
| Filing 7 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file brief for 30 days filed by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad. [Entered: 06/15/2026 05:06 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad. [Entered: 05/22/2026 11:45 AM] |
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Appellant Kevin B. Prasad, prison identification number BZ9517, is proceeding in forma pauperis and has filed the form authorizing prison officials to assess, collect, and forward to the district court the fees for this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1) and (2). This court assesses an initial filing fee that equals 20 percent of the greater of: (A) the average monthly deposits to appellants prison trust account; or (B) the average monthly balance in appellants account for the six months preceding April 23, 2026, when the notice of appeal was filed. Payments will not be made when funds in the account total less than $10, but payments will resume when funds become available. The clerk will serve this order and the authorization form on the Attorney General for the State of CA who must notify the agency or prison authority responsible for administering payments for this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2). Each payment should be accompanied by the district court and appeals court docket numbers for this case and a record of prior payments made for this appeal. The clerk will also serve a copy of this order on the district court clerk and the district court financial unit. [Entered: 05/18/2026 02:02 PM]
|
| Filing 4 Received PLRA Authorization filed by Appellant Kevin B. Prasad. [Entered: 05/15/2026 02:29 PM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. Appellant was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court. That status continues in this court because it has not been revoked. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). The full $605 in fees for this appeal will still be collected when adequate funds are available in appellants prison trust account. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1), (b)(2). Within 21 days, appellant must complete the enclosed authorization form and file it with this court. If appellant does not do so, the court will dismiss the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The clerk will serve this order and a prisoner authorization form on appellant. [Entered: 05/05/2026 03:28 PM]
|
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 7/14/2026, Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 6/15/2026. For appeal no. 26-2833, 4:22-cv-02720-JST. 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: 05/05/2026 10:19 AM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 4:22-cv-02720-JST 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 26-2833 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: 05/05/2026 10:17 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.
