Dragasits v. Massia, et al.
| STEPHEN DRAGASITS |
| MASSIA, Corrections Officer, B. GARCIA, Corrections Officer, R. QUIJADA, M. SALIEWSKY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, J. MACOMBER, Dir. of CDCR, Sec. of CDCR, P COVELLO, Warden, ARCHULETA, Correctional Officer at Donovan, E. BENYARD, Capt. Corrections Officer at R.J.D.F., N. SCHARR, SGT, Corrections officer at R.J.D.F., J. GONZALEZ, Corrections at R.J.D.F., C. GODINEZ, Corrections officer at R.J.D.F., NUCKLES, Lt. Supervisor at KVSP, R. CALVERT, Lt., J. JUAREZ, Chief Disciplinary Officer, QUIJADA, Correctional Officer, J. STEWART, Warden (A), R.J.D.C.F., E. FRIJAS, CCII Appeals Coordinator, K. J. ALLEN, Appeals Examiner, C. GONZALES, Appeal/ Coordinator/ Examiner, J. LUNA, Captain/ Supervisor, S. SWAIM, Associate Warden/ Chief Disciplinary Officer, J. ROE, C.O. IE Investigative Employee, HERNANDEZ, Responsibe party for inmates, ORTIZ, LT, FERREL, LT, AVILA, KEENER, Lt., JOHN DOES, 1 thru 5, Correctional Officers, JOHN DOE, 6, Supervisor/ Hiring Authority, San Diego RJDCF and JOHN DOE, 7#- 8, Office of Appeals Final Response |
| 26-5569 |
| August 27, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MANDATE ISSUED Andrew D. HURWITZ, Lawrence VANDYKE, Jennifer SUNG. The judgment of this Court, entered 9/17/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 10/09/2026 09:31 AM] |
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. (Andrew D. HURWITZ, Lawrence VANDYKE, Jennifer SUNG) This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the August 12, 2026 order challenged in the notice of appeal is not final or immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; McCall v. Deeds, 849 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1988) (denial of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification is not appealable). This appeal is therefore dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6(b) (if court determines it lacks jurisdiction, court may dismiss appeal without notice or further proceedings). All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [Entered: 09/17/2026 09:44 AM]
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Stephen Dragasits. [Entered: 09/15/2026 01:46 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 11/5/2026, Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 10/6/2026. For appeal no. 26-5569, 3:24-cv-01257-AGS-SBC. 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: 08/27/2026 04:02 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:24-cv-01257-AGS-SBC 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 26-5569 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: 08/27/2026 04:00 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.
