Berkeley Homeless Union, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al.
| BERKELEY HOMELESS UNION, FRANK MOORE, NICHOLAS JOHNSON and ADRIEN BOUCHARD |
| CITY OF BERKELEY, THOMAS GREGORY, PAUL BUDDENHAGEN, PETER RADU, OKEYA VANCE-DOZIER and RASHI KESERWANI |
| 26-842 |
| February 11, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 2, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 MAIL RETURNED. DE 8 addressed to Appellee Frank Moore. Action taken: none (no forwarding address found). [Entered: 04/02/2026 01:15 PM] |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Appellee Berkeley Homeless Union. [Court entered filing to correct DE 15] [Entered: 04/02/2026 11:51 AM] |
| Filing 15 DEFECTIVE --- MOTION to Extend Time to File Answer filed by Appellee Berkeley Homeless Union. [Wrong filing type used, corrected in DE 16] [Entered: 04/02/2026 11:37 AM] [Edited: 04/02/2026 11:52 AM] |
| Filing 14 MAIL RETURNED. DE 9 addressed to Appellee Frank Moore. Action taken: none (no forwarding address found). [Entered: 03/27/2026 03:44 PM] |
| Filing 13 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record submitted at DE 10, DE 11 by Appellants City of Berkeley, et al. are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 03/13/2026 10:29 AM] |
| Filing 12 MAIL RETURNED. DE 2 addressed to Appellee Frank Moore. Action taken: none (no forwarding address found). [Entered: 03/11/2026 04:12 PM] |
| Filing 11 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant City of Berkeley, Appellant Thomas Gregory, Appellant Paul Buddenhagen, Appellant Peter Radu, Appellant Okeya Vance-Dozier, Appellant Rashi Keserwani. [Entered: 03/11/2026 01:32 PM] |
| Filing 10 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant City of Berkeley, Appellant Thomas Gregory, Appellant Paul Buddenhagen, Appellant Peter Radu, Appellant Okeya Vance-Dozier, Appellant Rashi Keserwani. [Entered: 03/11/2026 01:12 PM] |
| Filing 9 RELEASED FROM MEDIATION (text only). This case is released from the Mediation Program. [Entered: 03/03/2026 05:22 PM] |
| Filing 8 MEDIATION ORDER: By 3/3/2026, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. Include Ninth Circuit case name and number in subject line. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. [Entered: 02/23/2026 11:32 AM] |
| Filing 7 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant City of Berkeley, Appellant Thomas Gregory, Appellant Paul Buddenhagen, Appellant Peter Radu, Appellant Okeya Vance-Dozier, Appellant Rashi Keserwani. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #[email protected] and include the case name and number in the subject line. Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts. [Entered: 02/18/2026 01:59 PM] |
| Filing 6 ADDED Counsel for Appellant Stephen Andrew Hylas [Entered: 02/18/2026 01:08 PM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Stephen Andrew Hylas for Appellant City of Berkeley, Appellant Okeya Vance-Dozier, Appellant Paul Buddenhagen, Appellant Peter Radu, Appellant Rashi Keserwani, Appellant Thomas Gregory. [Entered: 02/18/2026 09:11 AM] |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Stephen Andrew Hylas for Appellant City of Berkeley, Appellant Okeya Vance-Dozier, Appellant Paul Buddenhagen, Appellant Peter Radu, Appellant Rashi Keserwani, Appellant Thomas Gregory. [Entered: 02/18/2026 09:10 AM] |
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. In addition to all other issues the parties wish to raise in their briefs, the parties must address whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1); Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Batt, 67 F.3d 234, 236-37 (9th Cir. 1995) (a district court order is not an order continuing or modifying an injunction under 1292(a)(1) unless the injunction would otherwise have dissolved by its own terms or the order substantially alters the legal relations between the parties). The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. [Entered: 02/17/2026 10:27 AM]
|
| Filing 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULE NOTICE. Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 3/11/2026, Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 4/8/2026. For appeal no. 26-842, 3:25-cv-01414-EMC.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: 02/11/2026 02:49 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:25-cv-01414-EMC 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 26-842 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: 02/11/2026 02:46 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.
