Robert Tibbitts v. Glen Armstrong

Robert Tibbitts v. Glen Armstrong

Petitioner:	ROBERT TIBBITTS
Respondent:	GLEN ARMSTRONG
Case Number:	19-70590
Filed:	March 12, 2019
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
April 24, 2019	Filing 2 Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, JAY S. BYBEE and JOHN B. OWENS): The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied as unnecessary. Because the district court dismissed Tibbittss first habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, pursuant to Tibbittss motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition, Tibbitts may file a habeas petition without obtaining prior authorization. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000) (A habeas petition filed in the district court after an initial habeas petition was unadjudicated on its merits and dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies is not a second or successive petition.). We express no opinion as to the merits of the applicants claims or whether the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) and 2254 are satisfied. The Clerk shall transfer the application filed at Docket Entry No. [ # 1 ][ to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, to be processed as a section 2254 petition. The petition shall be deemed filed in the district court on February 23, 2019, the date on which the application was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Orona v. United States, 826 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2016) (AEDPAs statute of limitations period is tolled during pendency of an application). Upon transfer of the application, the Clerk shall close this original action. Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPLICATION TRANSFERRED to the district court. [11276245] (RT) [Entered: 04/24/2019 04:38 PM]
March 5, 2019	Filing 1 Application for leave to file a second or successive petition filed. (Research) [11223865][COURT UPDATE: New Documents Attached, resent NDA,--[Edited 03/12/2019 by BY](Original sent to SMS) (BY) [Entered: 03/12/2019 06:55 AM]

Date Filed

Document Text

April 24, 2019

Filing 2 Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, JAY S. BYBEE and JOHN B. OWENS): The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied as unnecessary. Because the district court dismissed Tibbittss first habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, pursuant to Tibbittss motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition, Tibbitts may file a habeas petition without obtaining prior authorization. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000) (A habeas petition filed in the district court after an initial habeas petition was unadjudicated on its merits and dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies is not a second or successive petition.). We express no opinion as to the merits of the applicants claims or whether the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) and 2254 are satisfied. The Clerk shall transfer the application filed at Docket Entry No. [ # 1 ][ to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, to be processed as a section 2254 petition. The petition shall be deemed filed in the district court on February 23, 2019, the date on which the application was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Orona v. United States, 826 F.3d 1196, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2016) (AEDPAs statute of limitations period is tolled during pendency of an application). Upon transfer of the application, the Clerk shall close this original action. Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPLICATION TRANSFERRED to the district court. [11276245] (RT) [Entered: 04/24/2019 04:38 PM]

March 5, 2019

Filing 1 Application for leave to file a second or successive petition filed. (Research) [11223865][COURT UPDATE: New Documents Attached, resent NDA,--[Edited 03/12/2019 by BY](Original sent to SMS) (BY) [Entered: 03/12/2019 06:55 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: Robert Tibbitts v. Glen Armstrong
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: ROBERT TIBBITTS
Represented By:	Robert Tibbitts
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: GLEN ARMSTRONG
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	[ 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.

Why Is My Information Online?