Canales v. Blanche
| EDWIN RAFAEL CANALES |
| TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General |
| 26-1848 |
| July 23, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on July 24, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER entered: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") is denied without prejudice to refiling. A compliant request for in forma pauperis status consists of a motion and a fully completed Form 4, Financial Affidavit. A copy of Form 4 is enclosed to the petitioner with this order. Petitioner's failure to either pay the $600.00 fee to the clerk of this court or file a compliant request for in forma pauperis status by August 7, 2026 will result in dismissal of the petition for lack of diligent prosecution. See 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b). [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/24/2026 07:14 PM]
|
| NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Respondent Todd Blanche filed by Attorney John F. Stanton. Served on 07/24/2026. [26-1848] (JFS) [Entered: 07/24/2026 08:56 AM] |
| AGENCY CASE docketed. Petition for review filed by Petitioner Edwin Rafael Canales. Fee due 08/06/2026 . Administrative record due 09/01/2026 . Copy of petition served on respondent(s) pursuant to FRAP 15(c). [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/23/2026 03:09 PM] |
| NOTICE regarding application of Local Rule 18.0. [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/23/2026 03:18 PM] |
| EMERGENCY MOTION to stay removal filed by Petitioner Edwin Rafael Canales. Served on 07/19/2026. [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/23/2026 03:25 PM] |
| MOTION to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Edwin Rafael Canales. Certificate of service was not included. [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/23/2026 03:30 PM] |
ORDER entered: Petitioner has filed a motion to stay removal. This order is issued in accordance with First Circuit Local Rule 18.0. Removal of the petitioner is hereby stayed for ten business days from the date of this order. The government shall file its response to the motion in accordance with the Local Rule. [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/23/2026 03:37 PM]
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Canales v. Blanche | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: EDWIN RAFAEL CANALES | |
| Represented By: | Edwin Rafael Canales |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General | |
| Represented By: | John Frederick Stanton |
| Represented By: | Oil |
| Represented By: | Anthony Paul Nicastro |
| Represented By: | Bernard Joseph |
| 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 | [ 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.
ORDER entered: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") is denied without prejudice to refiling. A compliant request for in forma pauperis status consists of a motion and a fully completed Form 4, Financial Affidavit. A copy of Form 4 is enclosed to the petitioner with this order. Petitioner's failure to either pay the $600.00 fee to the clerk of this court or file a compliant request for in forma pauperis status by August 7, 2026 will result in dismissal of the petition for lack of diligent prosecution. See 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b). [26-1848] (ALW) [Entered: 07/24/2026 07:14 PM]