Darrick Booker v. Director of California Departm
DARRICK ARMAND BOOKER |
DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS |
20-55396 |
April 15, 2020 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 16, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 2 Filed Appellant Darrick Armand Booker motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11663149] (NAC) [Entered: 04/16/2020 01:27 PM] |
Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 03/22/2020. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11662214] (OC) [Entered: 04/15/2020 03:58 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: Darrick Booker v. Director of California Departm | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner / appellant: DARRICK ARMAND BOOKER | |
Represented By: | Darrick Armand Booker |
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 ] |
Respondent / appellee: DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | |
Represented By: | Christopher Beesley |
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.