Jeffery Batson v. Kelly Santoro
JEFFERY BATSON |
KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden |
19-55178 |
February 12, 2019 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 Sent Appellant a copy of docket entry numbers 3 and 4 in response to his letter of request filed on 04/08/2019. [11257573] (JR) [Entered: 04/09/2019 10:42 AM] |
Filing 5 Filed Appellant Jeffery Batson letter dated 04/04/2019 re: request for copy of docket entry number 3. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11257523] (QDL) [Entered: 04/09/2019 10:24 AM] |
Filing 4 Filed order (BARRY G. SILVERMAN and SUSAN P. GRABER) We have received and reviewed appellants response to this courts February 13, 2019, order to show cause. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and appellant did not file a motion to extend time for appeal in the district court within the jurisdictional time limit. See 28 U.S.C. 2107, 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i); Vahan v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 102, 103 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a district court lacks authority to grant a motion to extend time for appeal if the motion was filed outside the time limits set by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [11240613] (JMR) [Entered: 03/25/2019 10:58 AM] |
Filing 3 Filed Appellant Jeffery Batson motion to allow late notice of appeal and certificate of appealability. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/28/2019. [11215530] (QDL) [Entered: 03/04/2019 04:29 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 December 20, 2018. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c). 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. [11188618] (JMR) [Entered: 02/13/2019 10:56 AM] |
Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 12/19/2018. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11187870] (JMR) [Entered: 02/12/2019 03:50 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: Jeffery Batson v. Kelly Santoro | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner / appellant: JEFFERY BATSON | |
Represented By: | Jeffery Batson |
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: KELLY SANTORO, Acting Warden | |
Represented By: | Junichi P. Semitsu Esquire |
Represented By: | Daniel Rogers |
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.