Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 F.3d 287

Docket No. 95-15797.

Stockmeier v. Angelone

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted to Motions Panel July 18, 1995*. Decided July 25, 1995.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1995-07-25

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 1919 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Doerr v. Doerr

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-07-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles (2002), Fj Hanshaw Enterprises Inc Frederick Hanshaw v. Emerald River Development Inc Gordon Richard a Marshack (2001)

38 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

5001995200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Robert Stockmeier, Ely, NV; and Carl Henry Olsen, Ely, NV, in pro se for plaintiffs-appellants.

Anne B. Cathcart, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, NV, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before: FLETCHER, KOZINSKI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

¶1

On June 8, 1995, this court issued an order directing appellants to pay the filing fees for this appeal or file a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Appellants' response to that order asserts that they were proceeding in the district court in forma pauperis, and that such status continues automatically for the appeal pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a).

¶2

We hold that the district court's imposition of a partial filing fee is not tantamount to the award of pauperis status for the purposes of Fed.R.App.P. 24(a). See Butler v. Leen, 4 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.1993) (imposition of partial filing fee precludes district court from dismissing forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d)).

¶3

Consequently, within 14 days from entry of this order, appellants shall pay the filing fees or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Failure to comply with this order will result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute.

*

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)

/62/f3d/287 · .json · Public domain