Rodney Sims v. Kimberly Seibel
| RODNEY LOUIS SIMS |
| KIMBERLY A. SEIBEL, Warden |
| 19-55914 |
| August 5, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): On August 27, 2019, the district court granted appellants motion to reopen time for appeal. This appeal will move forward based on appellants July 29, 2019, notice of appeal. This court will rule on the request for a certificate of appealability and any pending motions in a later order. [11415666] (AF) [Entered: 08/29/2019 03:00 PM] |
| Filing 6 Received copy of District Court order filed on 08/27/2019 granting motion to reopen time to file appeal. [11414598] (CW) [Entered: 08/29/2019 08:12 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER and RICHARD A. PAEZ): Although the July 29, 2019, notice of appeal was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after entry of the June 18, 2019, judgment, appellants notice of appeal includes an allegation (at page 12) that he did not receive notice of entry of judgment until July 16, 2019. We construe appellants pro se notice of appeal as a motion to reopen pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). See United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court has not had an opportunity to rule on that motion. This appeal is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing that court to rule on appellants July 29, 2019, motion to reopen the time for appeal. The district court is requested to serve a copy of its decision on this court at its earliest convenience. Briefing is stayed pending further order of the court. If the district court grants the motion to reopen, appellant does not need to file a new notice of appeal. The Clerk will send a copy of this order directly to the district judge. [11407151] (AF) [Entered: 08/22/2019 02:26 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Rodney Louis Sims letter dated 08/10/2019 re: District Court providing false information. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11399616] (NAC) [Entered: 08/16/2019 10:16 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Rodney Louis Sims motion for certificate of appealability. Deficiencies: None. [11399685] (NAC) [Entered: 08/16/2019 10:31 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Rodney Louis Sims motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None.[11399679] (NAC) [Entered: 08/16/2019 10:30 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 06/17/2019. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11387634] (OC) [Entered: 08/05/2019 03:54 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: Rodney Sims v. Kimberly Seibel | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: RODNEY LOUIS SIMS | |
| Represented By: | Rodney Louis Sims |
| 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: KIMBERLY A. SEIBEL, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Taylor Nguyen |
| 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.
