William Thietje v. Ken Clark
| WILLIAM ROY THIETJE |
| KEN CLARK, Warden |
| 21-16569 |
| September 24, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed Appellant William Roy Thietje motion for equitable tolling consideration relevant to NOA time bar and dismissal order. Deficiencies: None. [12276544] (RR) [Entered: 11/02/2021 06:46 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): This appeal was dismissed on October 14, 2021. Accordingly, the court will take no action on appellants motions for appointment of counsel and motion to proceed in form a pauperis received on October 18, 2021. The court has received appellants notice of change of address. The Clerk will send a copy of the October 14, 2021 order (Docket Entry No. [ # 2 ]) to appellant at his new address along with this order. [12264339] (OC) [Entered: 10/21/2021 11:24 AM] |
| Filing 5 Received notice of change of address dated 10/10/2021 from William Roy Thietje. New address: 480 Alta Rd., San Diego, CA 92179. [12260773]--[Edited: address updated. 10/19/2021 by SLM] (QDL) [Entered: 10/18/2021 07:05 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant William Roy Thietje motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: Case closed. Served on 10/10/2021. [12260771] (QDL) [Entered: 10/18/2021 07:03 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant William Roy Thietje motion for copies of excerpts of record. Deficiencies: Case closed. Served on 10/10/2021. [12260770] (QDL) [Entered: 10/18/2021 07:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER and JAY S. BYBEE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal, dated September 7, 2021 and filed on September 17, 2021, was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on July 23, 2021. 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. [12257280] (JBS) [Entered: 10/14/2021 01:55 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant William Roy Thietje opening brief due 11/24/2021. Appellee Ken Clark, Warden answering brief due 12/27/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12238248] (RT) [Entered: 09/24/2021 11:57 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.
| Search for this case: William Thietje v. Ken Clark | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: WILLIAM ROY THIETJE | |
| Represented By: | William Roy Thietje |
| 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: KEN CLARK, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Max Feinstat |
| Represented By: | Stephanie Ayn Mitchell |
| 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.
