James Mitchell v. Eric Jackson
Respondent / Appellee: ERIC JACKSON
Petitioner / Appellant: JAMES E. MITCHELL
Case Number: 20-36133
Filed: December 31, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 24, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 24, 2021 Filing 7 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record reflects that on February 4, 2021, the district court issued a modified certificate of appealability, specifying the issues that satisfy 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). Accordingly, this appeal may proceed. Appellants pro se motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel will be addressed by separate order. The court will set a briefing schedule for this appeal following disposition of the pending motions. [12014746] (WL) [Entered: 02/24/2021 09:37 AM]
February 5, 2021 Filing 6 Received copy of District Court order filed:ORDERS that a modified certificate of appealability on Petitioners prosecutorial misconduct claim and his related ineffective assistance claim only is GRANTED. [11994839] (JFF) [Entered: 02/05/2021 03:41 PM]
February 1, 2021 Filing 5 Filed Appellant James E. Mitchell motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11990025] (JFF) [Entered: 02/02/2021 01:49 PM]
February 1, 2021 Filing 4 Filed order (Interim Appellate Commissioner) The district court issued a certificate of appealability in this case arising under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The case is remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to issue a modified certificate of appealability, at its earliest convenience, that specifies the issue or issues that meet the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the district court. (MOATT) [11988180] (TSP) [Entered: 02/01/2021 01:24 PM]
January 14, 2021 Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed grants petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [11963580] (JFF) [Entered: 01/14/2021 10:44 AM]
December 31, 2020 Filing 2 Filed Appellant James E. Mitchell motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 12/30/2020. [11949849] (RT) [Entered: 12/31/2020 02:06 PM]
December 31, 2020 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant James E. Mitchell opening brief due 03/02/2021. Appellee Eric Jackson answering brief due 04/02/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11949817] (RT) [Entered: 12/31/2020 01:47 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: James Mitchell v. Eric Jackson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent / appellee: ERIC JACKSON
Represented By: Paul D. Weisser
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: JAMES E. MITCHELL
Represented By: Corey Evan Parker
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.


Why Is My Information Online?