Edward Elias v. Scott Kernan, et al
| CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden |
| EDWARD JESUS ELIAS |
| SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary of the CDCR and UNNAMED RESPONDENTS |
| 19-56080 |
| September 13, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: NA): This appeal was filed while a timely Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) motion was pending in the district court. The notice of appeal is therefore ineffective, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), and proceedings in this court will be stayed until the district court decides the September 12, 2019, motion. See Leader Natl Ins. Co. v. Industrial Indemnity Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 1994). Within 21 days after the district courts decision, appellant must notify this court in writing of the decision and state whether he wishes to move forward with this appeal. To challenge the decision on the post-judgment motion, appellant must file an amended notice of appeal within the time set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). A copy of this order will be sent to the district court. [11467870] (JMR) [Entered: 10/17/2019 11:17 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Edward Jesus Elias motion to extend time to file COA request until 11/15/2019. Deficiencies: None. Served on 10/10/2019. [11466985] (QDL) [Entered: 10/16/2019 04:22 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 08/15/2019. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11430925] (HC) [Entered: 09/13/2019 11:49 AM] |
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.
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.
