9th Cir. 19-35917 Docket
Edmo v. Corizon
No. 19-35917, Case History (under construction)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Panel: Circuit Judges M. Margaret Mckeown and Ronald M. Gould; District Robert S. Lasnik (W.D.Wash., sitting by designation)
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
| 11/01/2019 | 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. [11486583] (RT) [Entered: 11/01/2019 03:16 PM] |
| 11/07/2019 | 2 | Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: TSP): The appeal filed October 31, 2019 is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 shall apply. The mediation questionnaire is due three days after the date of this order. If they have not already done so, within 7 calendar days after the filing date of this order, the parties shall make arrangements to obtain from the court reporter an official transcript of proceedings in the district court that will be included in the record on appeal. The briefing schedule shall proceed as follows: the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than November 29, 2019; the answering brief is due December 27, 2019 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. See 9th Cir. R. 3-3(b). No streamlined extensions of time will be approved. See 9th Cir. R. 31-2.2(a)(3). 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. [11492214] (AF) [Entered: 11/07/2019 10:06 AM] |
| 11/12/2019 | 3 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Corizon, Inc., Scott Eliason, Catherine Whinnery and Murray Young Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/12/2019. [11496031] [19-35917] (Eaton, Dylan) [Entered: 11/12/2019 12:28 PM] |
| 11/12/2019 | 4 | The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 11/12/2019. 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.[11496048]. [19-35917] (AD) [Entered: 11/12/2019 12:44 PM] |
| 11/12/2019 | 5 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Henry Atencio, Richard Craig, Idaho Department of Corrections, Rona Siegert, Howard Keith Yordy and Jeff Zumda Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 11/12/2019. [11496355] [19-35917] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 11/12/2019 02:49 PM] |
| 11/13/2019 | 6 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Corizon, Inc., Scott Eliason, Catherine Whinnery and Murray Young EMERGENCY Motion to stay lower court action. Date of service: 11/13/2019. [11497967] [19-35917] (Eaton, Dylan) [Entered: 11/13/2019 02:50 PM] |
| 11/14/2019 | 7 | Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AC): The court has received appellants’ emergency motion for a stay pending appeal. Appellee’s response to the motion is due by 12:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Monday, November 18, 2019. Appellants’ optional reply in support of the motion is due by 12:00 p.m. Pacific Time on Tuesday, November 19, 2019. [11499678] (AF) [Entered: 11/14/2019 04:17 PM] |
| 11/18/2019 | 8 | Filed (ECF) Appellee Adree Edmo Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and Response opposing motion ([6] Motion (ECF Filing), [6] Motion (ECF Filing)). Date of service: 11/18/2019. [11502151] [19-35917] (Rifkin, Lori) [Entered: 11/18/2019 11:54 AM] |
| 11/19/2019 | 9 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Henry Atencio, Richard Craig, Idaho Department of Corrections, Rona Siegert, Howard Keith Yordy and Jeff Zumda response to motion ([8] Motion and Response to Motion (ECF Filing), [8] Motion and Response to Motion (ECF Filing)). Date of service: 11/19/2019. [11503938] [19-35917] (Hall, Brady) [Entered: 11/19/2019 11:49 AM] |
| 11/19/2019 | 10 | Filed (ECF) Appellants Corizon, Inc., Scott Eliason, Catherine Whinnery and Murray Young Correspondence: The Notice of Errata is being filed to correct typos in the original document filed at DktEntry 9 on 11/19/19.. Date of service: 11/19/2019 [11504236] [19-35917] (Eaton, Dylan) [Entered: 11/19/2019 02:10 PM] |
| 11/20/2019 | 11 | Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, RONALD M. GOULD and ROBERT S. LASNIK): We lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. It is the general rule that we do not have jurisdiction over appeals of non-final judgments by a district court. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83 (9th Cir. 1981); 28 U.S.C. § 1291. An exception to the final-judgment rule exists for interlocutory appeals of orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). But here the record establishes that the challenged district court order (D. Ct. Dkt. No. 225) did not modify the December 13, 2018 permanent injunction. Instead, the transcript of the October 17, 2019 status conference shows that the district court filed the order as clarification in response to Defendant-Appellants’ requests for “proper direction and guidance” on the scope of the existing injunction. A clarification of an existing injunction that does not substantially alter the legal relations of the parties but “merely interprets” the injunction does not constitute a modification of that injunction. Cunningham v. David Special Commitment Center, 158 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, the district court is applying the injunction consistent with this court’s partial lift of the stay of that injunction “so that Plaintiff may receive all presurgical treatments and related corollary appointments or consultations necessary for gender confirmation surgery.” (Case No. 19-35017 Dkt. No. 104, at 2.) Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal. This appeal is DISMISSED.1 [11505836] (AF) [Entered: 11/20/2019 02:35 PM] |
| 12/12/2019 | 12 | MANDATE ISSUED.(MMM, RMG and RSL) [11530060] (RR) [Entered: 12/12/2019 11:34 AM] |
Last updated 04/10/2021
Reconciled with online docket 04/07/2021