Michael Pushkarow v. Rosemary Ndoh, et al
| ROSEMARY NDOH and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA |
| MICHAEL ALEX PUSHKAROW |
| 21-15707 |
| April 22, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): Appellants counsel has fully complied with this courts April 23, 2021 order. Any request for a certificate of appealability is due by June 24, 2021. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(d). [12116432] (AF) [Entered: 05/18/2021 10:49 AM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of second amended notice of appeal from district court dated 4/15/21 d/c DE 20[12112988] (DJV) [Entered: 05/14/2021 09:31 AM] |
| Filing 4 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court filed on 5/13/21 d/c DE 19. [12112983] (DJV) [Entered: 05/14/2021 09:29 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Michael Alex Pushkarow reply to response to Court order dated 04/23/2021. Date of service: 05/13/2021. [12112322] [21-15707] (McCarthy, Paul) [Entered: 05/13/2021 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): Appellant was represented in the district court by attorneys Robert Joseph Beles and Paul G. McCarthy. On April 19, 2021, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Counsel Beles and McCarthy have not been granted leave to withdraw by the district court or this court. Counsel has the duty to continue to represent the appellant on appeal until counsel is relieved by this court. See 9th Cir. R. 4-1(a). Therefore, even though the notice of appeal was filed pro se, counsel Beles and McCarthy remain responsible for prosecuting this appeal. The Clerk will serve this order on counsel Beles and McCarthy, who must serve a copy of this order on appellant and provide proof of service to this court showing appellants current address and registration number within 21 days after the date of this order. Counsel must also, within 21 days after the date of this order, either notify this court that they intend to represent appellant on appeal or file a motion to withdraw under Ninth Circuit Rule 4-1(c). A review of the record also reflects that appellant did not sign the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2) (notice of appeal considered filed on behalf of the signer); see also Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 765 (2001) (pro se litigants failure to sign the notice of appeal is a nonjurisdictional, and therefore, curable defect; a typed signature is not sufficient); McKinney v. Debord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974) (pro se appellant must personally sign notice of appeal). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must correct the defect by filing a signed copy of the notice of appeal in the district court. If appellant does not correct the defect in his notice of appeal, the Clerk may dismiss this request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of this court. [12084894] (AF) [Entered: 04/23/2021 11:24 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 03/18/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. (Electronic: PACER) [12083414] (RT) [Entered: 04/22/2021 11:17 AM] |
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.
