Salerno v. Williams et al
| Fox Joseph Salerno |
| Dean Williams and David Shinn |
| 2:2022cv00558 |
| April 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Deborah M Fine (PS) |
| Roslyn O Silver |
| Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 USCA Case Number re: #14 Notice of Appeal. Case number 22-15812, Ninth Circuit. (Distributed by the 9th Circuit) (BAC) |
Filing 13
ORDER of USCA. The petition for a writ of mandamus manifests an intent to appeal from the district court's judgment entered on 4/11/22, in district court case No. 2:22-cv-00558-ROS-DMF. Accordingly, the petition is construed as a notice of appeal. See In re Sweet Transfer & Storage, Inc., 896 F.2d 1189, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 1990) (stating that document not formally denominated notice of appeal may be treated as one if it clearly evinces the intent to appeal). Clerk shall transfer the petition to the clerk of the district court for docketing as a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal shall be deemed filed in the district court on 5/3/22. Upon transmittal of the petition to the district court, the Clerk shall close this original action. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is denied as moot. (Distributed by the 9th Circuit) (BAC)
|
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: #11 Clerk's Judgment, #10 Order by Fox Joseph Salerno. (BAC) |
| Filing 12 USCA Case Number re: Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition, Ninth Circuit Case Number 22-70083. (Copies distributed by the Ninth Circuit.) (DLC) |
| Filing 11 CLERK'S JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court's order filed April 11, 2022, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (SST) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER: Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1 ) and this action are dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. The Clerk of Court must provide Petitioner with a copy of the form recommended by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for filing an Application for Leave to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 or Motion Under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. (See Order for full details.) Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 4/11/22. (SST)
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT - On April 7, 2022, the District of Colorado transferred a petition filed by the pro se petitioner to the Arizona District Court, which has now been assigned the case number listed above. This case has been assigned to District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver, and has been referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (PS) and the Court's Legal Staff. When any action is taken in this case, you will be notified by Court order. (MAP) |
| Filing 8 CASE TRANSFERRED IN from District of Colorado; Case Number 1:22-cv-00124 . Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received |
|
Filing 7
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. It is ORDERED that the clerk of the court transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 03/24/2022. (sdunb, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.]
|
| Filing 6 RESPONSE to #3 Order to Cure Deficiencies and Show Cause by Petitioner Fox Joseph Salerno. (sdunb, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.] |
|
Filing 5
MINUTE ORDER granting #4 Motion for Extension of Time to Cure Deficiencies. Applicant shall cure deficiencies and show cause in compliance with the January 20, 2022 Order, on or before April 1, 2022. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. By Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 01/31/2022.(sdunb, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.]
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Extension of Time to Cure Deficiencies by Petitioner Fox Joseph Salerno. (sdunb, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER DIRECTING APPLICANT TO CURE DEFICIENCIES AND SHOW CAUSE. It is ORDERED that Applicant cure the designated deficiencies within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Any papers that Applicant files in response to this order must include the civil action number on this order. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Applicant show cause in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this order why the habeas corpus application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 should not be dismissed. It is FURTHER ORDERED that if Applicant fails to cure the designated deficiencies and show good cause within the time allowed, the application will be denied, and the action will be dismissed without further notice. By Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher on 01/20/2022. (sdunb, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.]
|
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher Text Only Entry. (jcharl, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.] |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241 (Filing fee $ 5, Receipt Number COX101820), filed by Fox Joseph Salerno. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(jcharl, ) [Transferred from cod on 4/7/2022.] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
