Angelique Spurlock v. People of the State of Califor, et al
| ANGELIQUE DETRICE SPURLOCK |
| JANEL ESPINOZA, Warden - Central California Women's Facility and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA |
| 20-56094 |
| October 19, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant Angelique Detrice Spurlock motion for case to continue. Deficiencies: None. [11931252] (NAC) [Entered: 12/17/2020 11:36 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and BRIDGET S. BADE) : A review of the record and the parties responses to the October 22, 2020 order to show cause demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal, served on October 4, 2020 and filed on October 14, 2020, was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on June 30, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [11923393] (RT) [Entered: 12/10/2020 04:38 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellees Janel Espinoza and People of the State of California reply to response to Court order dated 10/22/2020. Date of service: 12/03/2020. [11914301] [20-56094] (Krauss, Jonathan) [Entered: 12/03/2020 02:39 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Angelique Detrice Spurlock motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11909556] (NAC) [Entered: 11/30/2020 02:16 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received Appellant Angelique Detrice Spurlock response Court order. [11904065] (NAC) [Entered: 11/23/2020 04:00 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on June 30, 2020. Appellants notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials on October 4, 2020, and received by the district court on October 14, 2020. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (notice of appeal deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or file a statement to show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, appellant shall include in the statement a declaration stating the date on which appellant first received notice of the entry of judgment. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the statement. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [11868993] (CKP) [Entered: 10/22/2020 03:30 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Angelique Detrice Spurlock opening brief due 12/14/2020. Appellees Janel Espinoza and People of the State of California answering brief due 01/12/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11864346] (OC) [Entered: 10/19/2020 04:08 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.
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.
