Steven Ciotta v. K. Holland
| STEVEN CIOTTA |
| K. HOLLAND, Warden |
| 19-55557 |
| May 14, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): The court has received and reviewed appellants response to this courts May 15, 2019, order to show cause. In the response, appellant attests that he delivered the notice of appeal to prison authorities on April 17, 2019, within 30 days after entry of the district courts final order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c)(1). Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged. Appellants request for a certificate of appealability will be addressed in a future order. [11323823] (HC) [Entered: 06/07/2019 03:10 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received Appellant Steven Ciotta reply to this court's order entered on date 5/15/19 to avoid injustice. Served on 05/22/2019. [11309334] (RL) [Entered: 05/24/2019 04:34 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KB): The district courts post-judgment order was entered on the docket on March 21, 2019. Appellants notice of appeal from that order was dated April 16, 2019, but was not filed until May 6, 2019. Thus, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the post-judgment order. See 28 U.S.C 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Because appellant is a pro se prisoner, however, the notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Accordingly, within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall file with this court a declaration or notarized statement attesting to the date on which the notice of appeal was deposited in the institutions internal mail system and whether first-class postage was prepaid, or otherwise show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). A response may be filed within 10 days after service of appellants declaration. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. [11297994] (OC) [Entered: 05/15/2019 09:58 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 03/20/2019. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11296520] (JBS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 11:02 AM] |
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: Steven Ciotta v. K. Holland | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: STEVEN CIOTTA | |
| Represented By: | Steven Ciotta |
| 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: K. HOLLAND, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Kenneth Charles Byrne |
| Represented By: | Michael Robert Johnsen |
| Represented By: | Colleen Mary Tiedemann |
| 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.
