Darryl Dunsmore v. Laura Eldridge, et al
Petitioner / Appellant: DARRYL LEE DUNSMORE
Respondent / Appellee: LAURA ELDRIDGE and XAVIER BECCERA
Case Number: 20-56209
Filed: November 17, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 17, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 17, 2020 Filing 4 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court filed 11/25/20. [11931179] (CW) [Entered: 12/17/2020 11:05 AM]
November 30, 2020 Filing 3 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): The district court has not issued or declined to issue a certificate of appealability in this habeas appeal, brought by a state pretrial detainee who is challenging both a 2010 state court conviction and current ongoing criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the courts earliest convenience. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2009) (state pretrial detainee who seeks relief under section 2241 needs a certificate of appealability); see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 484, 482 (2000) (certificate of appealability is required to obtain appellate review of the district courts dismissal of a habeas corpus petition on procedural grounds); Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 832 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (same). If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. Under Asrar, if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of appealability should not be granted, and the Clerk of the district court shall forward to this court the record with the order denying the certificate. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the district judge. (Pro Se) [11909515] (CKP) [Entered: 11/30/2020 02:05 PM]
November 19, 2020 Filing 2 Filed Appellant Darryl Lee Dunsmore letter dated 11/13/2020 re: copy of notice of appeal. Paper filing deficiency: None. [11900389] (CW) [Entered: 11/20/2020 07:47 AM]
November 17, 2020 Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. [11896357] (WL) [Entered: 11/17/2020 03:18 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: Darryl Dunsmore v. Laura Eldridge, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner / appellant: DARRYL LEE DUNSMORE
Represented By: Darryl Lee Dunsmore
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: LAURA ELDRIDGE
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: XAVIER BECCERA
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?