Cedric Daniels v. Dave Davey
| CEDRIC L. DANIELS |
| DAVE DAVEY, Warden |
| 19-15629 |
| April 3, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 16, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellant Cedric L. Daniels Motion for certificate of appealability. Date of service: 05/16/2019. [11300043] [19-15629] (Beles, Robert) [Entered: 05/16/2019 12:16 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Cedric L. Daniels Correspondence: Letter to the court regarding representation in Ninth Circuit proceedings. Date of service: 04/18/2019 [11268493] [19-15629] (Beles, Robert) [Entered: 04/18/2019 11:05 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): Appellant was represented in the district court by retained counsel Robert Joseph Beles, Esq. On March 29, 2019, counsel Beles electronically transmitted from his electronic filing account a notice of appeal, purportedly pro se on behalf of appellant. Counsel Beles has not been granted leave to withdraw by the district court or this court. Counsel has the duty to continue to represent the appellant on appeal until counsel is relieved by this court. See 9th Cir. R. 4-1(a). Therefore, even though the notice of appeal was purportedly filed pro se, it was electronically filed from counsel Beless account, and counsel Beles remains responsible for prosecuting this appeal. The Clerk shall serve this order on counsel Beles, who shall serve a copy of this order on appellant and provide proof of service to this court showing appellants address and registration number within 21 days after the date of this order. Counsel Beles shall also, within 21 days after the date of this order, either notify this court that he intends to represent appellant on appeal or file a motion to withdraw under Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1(c). The court has received a number of notices of appeal purportedly filed pro se in cases where counsel Beles represented the appellants in the district court. Counsel Beles was reminded recently in Appeal Nos. 19-15356 and 19-15182 that he remains counsel of record in this court unless and until the court grants leave to withdraw under Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1(c). When filing notices of appeal on behalf of pro se litigants in any future cases, counsel Beles should carefully comply with Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1, E.D. Cal. Local Rule 131, and N.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 5- 1. (COA) [11255597] (WL) [Entered: 04/08/2019 09:40 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 02/27/2019. Record on appeal included: Yes. (Electronic: PACER) [11251745] (RT) [Entered: 04/03/2019 01:31 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: Cedric Daniels v. Dave Davey | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: CEDRIC L. DANIELS | |
| Represented By: | Robert Joseph Beles |
| 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: DAVE DAVEY, Warden | |
| Represented By: | David Andrew Eldridge |
| 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.
