George Nelson, III v. Treynor, et al
| GEORGE PATTON NELSON III |
| TREYNOR, Detective, Portland Police Bureau/Dept., SHARP, Detective, Portland Police Bureau/Dept., STACEY B., Oregon State Hospital, DON REISNER, Oregon State Hospital, FLORA SALCIDO, LCSW- Oregon State Hospital, and Public Authority), GUNDRU, Dr., Oregon State Hospital and OREGON STATE HOSPITAL |
| 18-35724 |
| August 29, 2018 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 Mail returned on 07/05/2019 addressed to George Patton Nelson, III, re: 06/24/2019 mandate [ # 10 ]. Returned envelope notes: return to sender, no longer here. Resending to: case files; appellant does not appear to now be in jail per online inmate database, no forwarding address found. [11355631] (LA) [Entered: 07/05/2019 06:24 PM] |
| Filing 10 MANDATE ISSUED. (EL, CMC and CTB) [11341681] (RL) [Entered: 06/24/2019 09:02 AM] |
| Filing 9 Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and CARLOS T. BEA) The district court certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). On September 12, 2018, the court ordered appellant to explain in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) (court shall dismiss case at any time, if court determines it is frivolous or malicious). Upon a review of the record and response to the courts September 12, 2018 order, we conclude this appeal is frivolous with respect to the district courts dismissal of appellants claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the denial of mandamus relief. We therefore deny appellants motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. [ # 6 ]) and dismiss this appeal in part as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). With respect to appellants challenge to the district courts denied of relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.[11315024] (WL) [Entered: 05/31/2019 10:12 AM] |
| Filing 8 Received notice of change of address dated 10/28/2018 from George Patton Nelson, III. New address: Multnomah County Jutice Center, 11540 NE Inverness Drive, Portland, OR 97220. [11070354]--[Edited: address updated. 11/02/2018 by RY] (NAC) [Entered: 11/02/2018 01:31 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant George Patton Nelson, III statement that appeal should go forward. [11044205] (NAC) [Entered: 10/11/2018 04:52 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant George Patton Nelson, III motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: No certificate of service [11044188] (NAC) [Entered: 10/11/2018 04:48 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of District Court order filed on 09/21/2018. Denying COA on the basis that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). [11022840] (RR) [Entered: 09/24/2018 01:38 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The district court has not issued or declined to issue a certificate of appealability in this habeas appeal, brought by a state pretrial detainee. Appellants amended habeas petition (District Court Docket No. 13) lists grounds that challenge pending state court criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the courts earliest convenience. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2009) (state pretrial detainee who seeks relief under section 2241 needs a certificate of appealability); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 484, 482 (2000) (certificate of appealability is required to obtain appellate review of the district courts dismissal of a habeas corpus petition on procedural grounds); Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 832 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (same). If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. Under Asrar, if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of appealability should not be granted, and the clerk of the district court shall forward to this court the record with the order denying the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the district judge. (Pro Se) [11009521] (CKP) [Entered: 09/12/2018 03:20 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [11008966] (CKP) [Entered: 09/12/2018 11:43 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [10997370] (CKP) [Entered: 08/31/2018 10:15 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. (Electronic: PACER) [10994611] (RT) [Entered: 08/29/2018 01:41 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.
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.
