Eric Clay v. Raymond Madden
| RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden |
| ERIC LAMONT CLAY |
| 20-55525 |
| May 13, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| ERIC CLAY V. RAYMOND MADDEN |
| ERIC CLAY V. RAYMOND MADDEN |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Received appearance notice of Tracy Casadio, Esq., as counsel of record for appellant Eric Lamont Clay, in case 20-55525. [11729924] (DL) [Entered: 06/22/2020 05:25 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. [ # 5 ]) is granted. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this status. Appellants motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. [ # 4 ]) in this appeal from the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. See 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Counsel will be appointed by separate order. The Clerk shall electronically serve this order on the appointing authority for the Central District of California, who will locate appointed counsel. The appointing authority shall send notification of the name, address, and telephone number of appointed counsel to the Clerk of this court at counselappointments@ca9.uscourts.gov within 14 days of locating counsel. The opening brief and excerpts of record are due September 21, 2020; the answering brief is due October 21, 2020; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. (MOATT) [11725902] (WL) [Entered: 06/18/2020 10:25 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Eric Lamont Clay motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [11712739] (RR) [Entered: 06/05/2020 01:39 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Eric Lamont Clay motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11712732] (RR) [Entered: 06/05/2020 01:37 PM] |
| Filing 3 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 20-55525: Due] ). [11691413] (CKP) [Entered: 05/14/2020 04:13 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CKP): Order to show cause docket fee due [11691403] (CKP) [Entered: 05/14/2020 04:08 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Eric Lamont Clay opening brief due 07/10/2020. Appellee Raymond Madden, Warden answering brief due 08/10/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11690279] (OC) [Entered: 05/13/2020 05:37 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: Eric Clay v. Raymond Madden | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent / appellee: RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Charles Shang-Rei Lee |
| 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: ERIC LAMONT CLAY | |
| Represented By: | Eric Lamont Clay |
| Represented By: | Tracy Casadio Esquire |
| 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.
