Woolard, et al. v. Orange County Superior Court, et al.
| ERIC WOOLARD and BREONNA HALL |
| ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, KIMBERLY A. KNILL, SHEILA RECIO and DOES, 1 through 10 Defendants |
| 26-478 |
| January 22, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 13, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. Appellant has not timely filed the opening brief, or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or proof that fees were paid to the district court, as ordered by this court on March 26, 2026. This appeal is therefore dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. This order becomes the mandate of the court in 21 days. [Entered: 05/13/2026 12:55 PM]
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER FILED. On March 3, 2026, the district court resolved the post-judgment motion. The stay of proceedings is therefore lifted and this appeal will proceed. The fees for this appeal are overdue. Within 21 days, appellants must pay $605 to the district court and file proof of payment in this court or file individual motions to proceed in forma pauperis. If appellants do not do so, the court will dismiss this appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The opening brief is due May 4, 2026. The answering brief is due June 3, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. The clerk will serve Form 4 on appellants. [Entered: 03/26/2026 01:17 PM] [Edited: 03/26/2026 01:20 PM]
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Proceedings in this court other than mediation are stayed until the district court rules on the motion filed on January 12, 2026. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Leader Natl Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444, 445 (9th Cir. 1994). To challenge the district courts ruling on the post-judgment motion, appellant must file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The clerk will send a copy of this order to the district court and the district judge. [Entered: 02/24/2026 02:35 PM]
|
| Filing 4 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Sarah Lee Overton [Entered: 01/23/2026 12:19 PM] |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sarah Lee Overton for Appellee Kimberly A. Knill, Appellee Orange County Superior Court, Appellee Sheila Recio. [Entered: 01/23/2026 12:15 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 4/2/2026, Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 3/3/2026. For appeal no. 26-478, 8:25-cv-02018-VBF-PD. 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: 01/22/2026 04:55 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 8:25-cv-02018-VBF-PD 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 26-478 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: 01/22/2026 04:51 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.
