Ruiz-Romero v. Department of Justice
| ERNESTO RUIZ-ROMERO |
| PR DEPT OF JUSTICE |
| 23-1212 |
| March 8, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| General (Habeas Corpus) |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER entered. This court has docketed petitioner's appeal from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The case cannot go forward unless a certificate of appealability issues. 28 U.S.C. 2253. The district court declined to issue a certificate of appealability on March 13, 2023. Petitioner-appellant has filed a request for a certificate of appealability in the court of appeals. However, this court cannot consider the request until appellant either pays the docketing fee or moves for in forma pauperis status in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. Petitioner-appellant is advised that by May 5, 2023, he must either 1) pay the $505 fee to the district court, or 2) file in the district court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by Form 4, Financial Affidavit, and prison trust account statement, if incarcerated. See Fed. R. App. P. 24; Form 4. A copy of Form 4 is enclosed for petitioner-appellant. If petitioner-appellant does not notify this court that he has paid the fee, or if he does not file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on or before May 5, 2023, his appeal may be dismissed pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b). If petitioner-appellant timely pays the filing fee or moves for in forma pauperis status on appeal and is granted such status, the case will be submitted to this court for a determination whether a certificate should issue. If a certificate is denied, the appeal will be terminated. [23-1212] (GAK) [Entered: 04/05/2023 04:24 PM]
|
| MOTION for certificate of appealability filed by Appellant Ernesto Ruiz-Romero. Certificate of service was not dated. [23-1212] (GB) [Entered: 04/04/2023 03:28 PM] |
|
ORDER directing petitioner to file a request for a certificate of appealability in this court by 04/14/2023. Date of denial by district court: March 13, 2023. [23-1212] (GAK) [Entered: 03/15/2023 10:09 AM]
|
|
SUPPLEMENTAL record filed. Docket entries: 8 (Electronic Order entered on March 13, 2023 by Senior Judge Besosa denying a certificate of appealability). [23-1212]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (GAK) [Entered: 03/15/2023 10:02 AM]
|
|
ORDER directing district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability. [23-1212] (GB) [Entered: 03/10/2023 12:06 PM]
|
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #4) filed by Appellant Ernesto Ruiz-Romero. Fee due 03/22/2023 . [23-1212] (GB) [Entered: 03/08/2023 04:53 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Ruiz-Romero v. Department of Justice | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: ERNESTO RUIZ-ROMERO | |
| Represented By: | Ernesto Ruiz-Romero |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: PR DEPT OF JUSTICE | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
