Dennis Hollingsworth, et al v. USDCSF, et al

Filing 1

FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. [7187906] (HH)

Dennis Hollingsworth, et al v. USDCSF, et al

Doc. 1 Att. 2

Office of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Post Office Box 193939 San Francisco, California 94119-3939 415-355-8000
Molly C. Dwyer Clerk of Court

January 08, 2010

No.: D.C. No.: Short Title:

10-70063 3:09-cv-02292-VRW Dennis Hollingsworth, et al v. USDCSF, et al

Dear Petitioner/Counsel A petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition 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 shown above has been assigned to this case. Always indicate this docket number when corresponding with this office about your case. If the U.S. Court of Appeals docket fee has not yet been paid, please make immediate arrangements to do so. If you wish to apply for in forma pauperis status, you must file a motion for permission to proceed in forma pauperis with this court. Pursuant to Rule 21(b), FRAP, no answer to a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition may be filed unless ordered by the Court. If such an order is issued, the answer shall be filed by the respondents within the time fixed by the Court. A copy of the docket sheet case title page is attached. Please take special note of the case caption, as it may differ from that shown on the papers submitted for filing. Pursuant to Circuit Rule 21-2, an application for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition shall not bear the name of the district court judge concerned. Rather, the appropriate district court shall be named as respondent.

Dockets.Justia.com