Wade, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al.
| S. B., Siobhan Ward to be appointed Guardian Ad Litem of S.B., CHINA YOUNG, ADRIAN ARROYO, BRANDON LOPEZ and KATHRYN R WADE |
| CITY OF ANTIOCH, Chief TAMMANY BROOKS, Chief A. MOREFIELD, MORTEZA AMIRI, Police Officer for the City of Antioch, Sgt. EVANS, Sgt. JIMMY WISECARVER, Officer KELLY INABNETT, Sgt. STENGER, Officer AARON HUGHES, DEVON WENGER, Police Officer for the City of Antioch, ERIC ALLEN ROMBOUGH, Police Officer for the City of Antioch, JACOB EWART, Police Officer for the City of Antioch and MICHAEL MELLONE, Police Officer for the City of Antioch |
| 26-2916 |
| May 7, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 30, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 11 by Appellant Kathryn R Wade is filed. No paper copies are required. [26-2916, 26-3256] [Entered: 10/30/2026 08:43 AM] |
| Filing 11 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant Kathryn R Wade. [26-2916, 26-3256] [Entered: 10/28/2026 03:13 PM] |
| Filing 10 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Suzanne M. Nicholson [26-2916, 26-3256] [Entered: 09/18/2026 03:17 PM] |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Suzanne M. Nicholson for Appellee A. Morefield, Appellee City of Antioch, Appellee Jacob Ewart, Appellee Tammany Brooks. [26-2916, 26-3256] [Entered: 09/18/2026 02:14 PM] |
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. Andrew D. HURWITZ, Lawrence VANDYKE, Jennifer SUNG The court consolidates Appeal Nos. 26-2916 and 26-3256. The motion (Docket Entry No. 6 in No. 26-2916) for an extension of time to respond to the courts July 7, 2026 order is granted. The response has been filed. We conclude these appeals involve non-frivolous issues. The motions (Docket Entry No. 3 in No. 26-2916; Docket Entry Nos. 4, 14 in No. 26-3256) to proceed in forma pauperis are therefore granted, and these appeals will proceed. The motions (Docket Entry No. 4 in No. 26-2916; Docket Entry No. 5 in No. 26-3256) for appointment of pro bono counsel are denied. The opening brief in No. 26-3256 has been filed. The opening brief in No. 26-2916 is due October 28, 2026. The consolidated answering brief is due November 27, 2026. The optional reply briefs are due 21 days after the consolidated answering brief is served. Appellants are not required to submit excerpts of record. If appellants do not submit excerpts, appellees must submit all documents cited in the pro se opening briefs or otherwise required by the rules. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1. [26-2916, 26-3256] [Entered: 09/16/2026 02:24 PM]
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE to Order - Order to Show Cause (OSC) (DE 5) filed by Appellant Kathryn R Wade. [Entered: 08/27/2026 01:38 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Extend Time to Respond to Court Order filed by Appellant Kathryn R Wade. [Entered: 08/27/2026 01:34 PM] |
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. It appears that this appeal may be frivolous. If the appeal is frivolous, the court will deny permission to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days, appellant must: (1) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous, 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 appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellees may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. Briefing is stayed. The motion for appointment of pro bono counsel will be addressed, if necessary, following resolution of this order. 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, and (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward. [Entered: 07/07/2026 02:46 PM]
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Kathryn R Wade. [Entered: 06/04/2026 02:26 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Appellant Kathryn R Wade. [Entered: 05/29/2026 05:30 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 7/16/2026, Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 6/16/2026. For appeal no. 26-2916, 3:25-cv-03200-CRB. 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: 05/07/2026 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:25-cv-03200-CRB 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 26-2916 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: 05/07/2026 02:04 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.
