Antonio Williams v. Hutson, et al
| MILLER and HUTSON, Correctional Officer |
| ANTONIO R. WILLIAMS |
| 20-17255 |
| November 17, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): The district court judgment was entered on the docket on October 1, 2020. Appellants notice of appeal from that judgment was dated November 12, 2020, but was not received by the district court until November 16, 2020. The notice of appeal includes a statement that appellant did not receive the judgment until October 29, 2020. Appellants notice of appeal was not received by the district court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment, or within 14 days after appellant states that he received notice of the judgment. See 28 U.S.C 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1); see also 28 U.S.C. 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B) (motion to reopen based on lack of notice must be filed within 180 days after entry of the judgment or within 14 days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment, whichever is earlier); United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (statement in notice of appeal that appellant did not receive judgment should be construed as motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)). 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 appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of this court. [11927165] (CKP) [Entered: 12/14/2020 04:45 PM] |
| Filing 2 Mail returned on 11/30/2020 addressed to Kelly Savage Day, Esquire for Hutson, re: 11/17/2020 Case Opening Information [ # 1 ]. Returned envelope notes: Return to sender, not deliverable as addressed, unable to forward. Resending to: Savage Day 101 Lucas Valley Rd. Suite 272 San Rafael, CA 94903. [11909952]--[Edited: address udpated. 11/30/2020 by SLM] (JBS) [Entered: 11/30/2020 04:51 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Antonio R. Williams opening brief due 01/15/2021. Appellees Hutson and Miller answering brief due 02/16/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11896238] (JPD) [Entered: 11/17/2020 03:04 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.
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.
