Jess Smith v. Jeffrey Uttecht
| JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Warden |
| JESS RICHARD SMITH |
| 20-35568 |
| June 24, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 07/10/2020 denying certificate of appealability. [11758754] (QDL) [Entered: 07/20/2020 12:57 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The district courts May 27, 2020 order construed appellants May 20, 2019 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition as a request for permission to file a second or successive petition, and transferred the petition to this court. The transferred petition is pending as an application for leave to file a second or successive petition in docket No. 20-71842. On June 18, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging the district courts May 27, 2020 order, resulting in the opening of this appeal No. 20-23368. The district court has not issued or declined to issue a certificate of appealability in this appeal of the May 27, 2020 order. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the courts earliest convenience. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 484, 482 (2000) (certificate of appealability is required to obtain appellate review of the district courts dismissal of a habeas corpus petition on procedural grounds); Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 832 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (same). If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. Under Asrar, if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of appealability should not be granted, and the Clerk of the district court shall forward to this court the record with the order denying the certificate. See Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the district court. (Pro Se) [11736609] (CKP) [Entered: 06/29/2020 02:01 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. (Electronic: PACER) [11732295] (RT) [Entered: 06/24/2020 01:13 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: Jess Smith v. Jeffrey Uttecht | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: JEFFREY A. UTTECHT, Warden | |
| Represented By: | John Joseph Samson |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: JESS RICHARD SMITH | |
| Represented By: | Jess Richard Smith |
| 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.
