Eric Clay v. Raymond Madden
Respondent / Appellee: RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant: ERIC LAMONT CLAY
Case Number: 20-55525
Filed: May 13, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
August 15, 2023 ERIC CLAY V. RAYMOND MADDEN
October 11, 2023 ERIC CLAY V. RAYMOND MADDEN

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2020 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]
June 18, 2020 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]
June 5, 2020 Filing 5 Filed Appellant Eric Lamont Clay motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. [11712739] (RR) [Entered: 06/05/2020 01:39 PM]
June 5, 2020 Filing 4 Filed Appellant Eric Lamont Clay motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11712732] (RR) [Entered: 06/05/2020 01:37 PM]
May 14, 2020 Filing 3 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 20-55525: Due] ). [11691413] (CKP) [Entered: 05/14/2020 04:13 PM]
May 14, 2020 Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CKP): Order to show cause docket fee due [11691403] (CKP) [Entered: 05/14/2020 04:08 PM]
May 13, 2020 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.


Why Is My Information Online?