9th Cir. 19-35552 Docket
Edmo v. Corizon
No. 19-35552, Case History (under construction)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Panel: Not yet announced
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
| 07/01/2019 | 1 | DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: to be set. Preliminary Injunction Appeal. C.R. 3-3. [11350035] (RT) [Entered: 07/01/2019 10:11 AM] |
| 07/08/2019 | 2 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Corizon, Inc., Scott Eliason, Catherine Whinnery and Murray Young Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/08/2019. [11356093] [19-35552] (Eaton, Dylan) [Entered: 07/08/2019 10:13 AM] |
| 07/08/2019 | 3 | The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 07/08/2019. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following link. 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.[11356480][19-35552] (AD) [Entered: 07/08/2019 12:44 PM] |
| 07/08/2019 | 4 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Idaho Department of Corrections, Henry Atencio, Jeff Zumda, Howard Keith Yordy, Richard Craig and Rona Siegert Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 07/08/2019. [11356498] [19-35552] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 07/08/2019 01:01 PM] |
| 07/10/2019 | 5 | MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is NOT SELECTED for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant further settlement discussions. The briefing schedule previously established by the court remains in effect. [11359204] (LW) [Entered: 07/10/2019 11:19 AM] |
| 07/11/2019 | 6 | Filed order MEDIATION (LW): The court’s order at docket entry [5] is VACATED. This case is NOT SELECTED for inclusion in the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant further settlement discussions. [11360388] (SB) [Entered: 07/11/2019 10:43 AM] |
| 07/26/2019 | 7 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Corizon, Inc., Scott Eliason, Catherine Whinnery and Murray Young Joint Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion for Clarification]. Date of service: 07/26/2019. [11378224] [19-35552] (Eaton, Dylan) [Entered: 07/26/2019 02:12 PM] |
| 08/02/2019 | 8 | Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AC): To the extent that appellants’ motion for clarification (Docket Entry No. 7) seeks clarification regarding the status of briefing, it is granted. The court has not established a briefing schedule for this appeal, and there are currently no briefing deadlines. To the extent that the motion seeks any other relief related to briefing in this appeal, it is denied without prejudice to renewing the request in a separate motion. [11385234] (JPD) [Entered: 08/02/2019 10:37 AM] |
| 09/11/2019 | 9 | Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: OC): On August 23, 2019, this court issued an opinion in Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., No. 19-35017 and 19-35019, affirming the district court’s entry of an injunction for Edmo and vacating and remanding the injunction insofar as it applied to Corizon, Yordy, Siegert, Dr. Young, Dr. Craig, and Dr. Whinnery in their individual capacities. Defendant-Appellants are therefore ordered to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. If Defendant-Appellants do not respond within 14 days, the appeal will be dismissed. [11428941] (OC) [Entered: 09/11/2019 05:24 PM] |
| 09/25/2019 | 10 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Henry Atencio, Richard Craig, Idaho Department of Corrections, Rona Siegert, Howard Keith Yordy and Jeff Zumda response to Court order dated 09/11/2019. Date of service: 09/25/2019. [11443874] [19-35552] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 09/25/2019 03:45 PM] |
| 10/18/2019 | 11 | Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AC): The September 11, 2019 order to show cause is discharged. Appellants’ opening brief is due November 15, 2019. Appellee’s answering brief is due December 13, 2019. Appellants’ optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a). Any request for an extension of time to file a brief must be made by written motion under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). Failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [11469861] (OC) [Entered: 10/18/2019 02:05 PM] |
| 11/15/2019 | 12 | Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Henry Atencio, Corizon, Inc., Richard Craig, Scott Eliason, Idaho Department of Corrections, Rona Siegert, Catherine Whinnery, Howard Keith Yordy, Murray Young and Jeff Zumda. Date of service: 11/15/2019. [11500995] [19-35552]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected PDF of the brief. 11/20/2019 by KWG] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 11/15/2019 03:22 PM] |
| 11/15/2019 | 13 | Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellants Henry Atencio, Corizon, Inc., Richard Craig, Scott Eliason, Idaho Department of Corrections, Rona Siegert, Catherine Whinnery, Howard Keith Yordy, Murray Young and Jeff Zumda. Date of service: 11/15/2019. [11500997] [19-35552]–[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected PDF of the excerpts. 11/20/2019 by KWG] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 11/15/2019 03:23 PM] |
| 11/20/2019 | 14 | Filed clerk order: The opening brief [12] and excerpts of record [13] submitted by appellants are filed. No paper copies are required at this time. [11504915] (KWG) [Entered: 11/20/2019 09:20 AM] |
| 12/12/2019 | 15 | Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellee Adree Edmo. Date of service: 12/12/2019. [11530935] [19-35552] (Rifkin, Lori) [Entered: 12/12/2019 09:07 PM] |
| 12/16/2019 | 16 |
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [15] submitted by Appellee Adree Edmo is filed.
The Court previously filed the opening brief [12] and excerpts of record [13] submitted by Appellants.
Within 7 days of this order, the filer of each brief is ordered to file 6 copies of that brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. The Form 18 certificate is available on the Court’s website at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form18.pdf.
The covers of the opening brief must be blue.
Within 7 days of this order, the filer of each set of excerpts of record is ordered to file 3 copies of that set of excerpts in paper format securely bound on the left side, with white covers.
The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. The address for regular U.S. mail is P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939. The address for overnight mail is 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1526. [11533003] (SML) [Entered: 12/16/2019 09:59 AM] |
| 12/19/2019 | 17 | Received 6 paper copies of Answering Brief [15] filed by Adree Edmo. (sent to panel) [11538864] (SD) [Entered: 12/19/2019 02:50 PM] |
| 12/20/2019 | 18 | Received 6 paper copies of Opening Brief [12] filed by Appellants. (sent to panel) [11540355] (SD) [Entered: 12/20/2019 02:35 PM] |
| 12/20/2019 | 19 | Received 3 paper copies of excerpts of record [13] in 1 volume(s) filed by Appellants. (sent to panel) [11540497] (SML) [Entered: 12/20/2019 03:04 PM] |
| 01/02/2020 | 20 | Submitted (ECF) Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Henry Atencio, Corizon, Inc., Richard Craig, Scott Eliason, Idaho Department of Corrections, Rona Siegert, Catherine Whinnery, Howard Keith Yordy, Murray Young and Jeff Zumda. Date of service: 01/02/2020. [11549628] [19-35552] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 01/02/2020 05:40 PM] |
| 01/03/2020 | 21 | Filed clerk order: The reply brief [20] submitted by appellants is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 6 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: gray. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. [11549831] (SML) [Entered: 01/03/2020 09:43 AM] |
| 01/13/2020 | 22 | Received 6 paper copies of Reply Brief [20] filed by Appellants. (sent to panel) [11561167] (SD) [Entered: 01/14/2020 09:48 AM] |
| 05/13/2020 | 23 | Terminated Marisa Swank Crecelius for Jeff Zumda, Howard Keith Yordy, Rona Siegert, Idaho Department of Corrections, Richard Craig and Henry Atencio in 19-35552 (due to incorrect ECF contact information) [11690263] (RY) [Entered: 05/13/2020 05:09 PM] |
| 08/03/2020 | 24 | Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: WL): On August 23, 2019, this court issued an opinion in Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., Nos. 19-35017 and 19-35019, affirming the district court’s entry of an injunction for Edmo and vacating and remanding the injunction insofar as it applied to Corizon, Yordy, Siegert, Dr. Young, Dr. Craig, and Dr. Whinnery in their individual capacities. The mandate issued on February 19, 2020, and a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 6, 2020. On May 21, 2020, the Supreme Court declined to stay the injunction. Defendants-Appellants therefore ordered to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. The response of no more than ten pages shall be filed no later than 14 days of the filing of this order. [11775823] (AF) [Entered: 08/03/2020 05:17 PM] |
| 08/17/2020 | 25 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Corizon, Inc., Scott Eliason, Catherine Whinnery and Murray Young response to Court order dated 08/03/2020. Date of service: 08/17/2020. [11791992] [19-35552] (Eaton, Dylan) [Entered: 08/17/2020 03:32 PM] |
| 08/19/2020 | 26 | Order filed (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, RONALD M. GOULD and ROBERT S. LASNIK) On August 3, 2020, this court ordered Defendants-Appellants to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot, in light of the issuance of the mandate in Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., Nos. 19-35017 and 19-35019, and the Supreme Court’s declination to stay the district court’s injunction. On August 17, 2020 Defendants-Appellants filed a response conceding that the appeal is moot. (Dkt. [25].) This appeal is therefore DISMISSED AS MOOT. This order constitutes the mandate of this court. [11794453] (OC) [Entered: 08/19/2020 09:22 AM] |
Last updated 09/04/2020
Reconciled with online docket 09/03/2020