Stefon Johnson v. Martin Biter
| STEFON DEON JOHNSON, AKA Stephon Deon Johnson |
| MARTIN BITER, Warden |
| 19-15035 |
| January 7, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 27, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed order (STEPHEN S. TROTT and MARY H. MURGUIA) We have received and reviewed appellants responses to this courts January 8, 2019, order to show cause. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See 28 U.S.C. 2107, 2253(c)(2). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [11209925] (JMR) [Entered: 02/27/2019 02:10 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Stefon Deon Johnson response to order to show cause.. [11167391] (JFF) [Entered: 01/25/2019 03:05 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Stefon Deon Johnson motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 01/21/2019. [11167386] (JFF) [Entered: 01/25/2019 03:04 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Stefon Deon Johnson letter dated 01/04/2019 re: questions on case. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11154258] (JFF) [Entered: 01/15/2019 04:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the request for certificate of appealability because the notice of appeal was not filed or deposited for mailing in the prisons internal mail system within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on October 1, 2018. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c). The record reflects that appellant filed a motion for reconsideration in the district court on November 8, 2018, but that motion does not appear to be a tolling motion under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) because it was not filed or deposited for mailing within 28 days after the judgment was entered. Appellants November 8, 2018, motion remains pending in the district court. Within 21 days after the filing date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the request for certificate of appealability or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of appellants memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this request for certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. [11145688] (WL) [Entered: 01/08/2019 02:50 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 10/01/2018. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11143627] (JBS) [Entered: 01/07/2019 01:54 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: Stefon Johnson v. Martin Biter | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: STEFON DEON JOHNSON, AKA Stephon Deon Johnson | |
| Represented By: | Stefon Deon Johnson |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent / appellee: MARTIN BITER, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Jill M. Thayer Esquire |
| 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.
