Paul Gilmore v. Ron Haynes
| PAUL ALAN GILMORE |
| RON HAYNES |
| 21-35541 |
| July 6, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 9, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): Appellants motion to extend time (Docket Entry No. [ # 3 ]) in which to respond to this courts July 6, 2021 order to show cause is granted. By September 22, 2021, appellant must file with this court a declaration or notarized statement attesting to the date on which the notice of appeal was deposited in the institutions internal mail system and whether first-class postage was prepaid, or otherwise show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of this court.[12195205] (WL) [Entered: 08/09/2021 09:50 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Paul Alan Gilmore motion to extend time. Deficiencies: None. [12184517] (JFF) [Entered: 07/27/2021 02:53 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): The district court judgment was entered on May 20, 2021. Appellants notice of appeal from that judgment was dated Monday, June 21, 2021, but was not filed until July 2, 2021. Thus, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment. See 28 U.S.C 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Because appellant is a pro se prisoner, however, the notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Within 21 days after this order, appellant must file with this court a declaration or notarized statement attesting to the date on which the notice of appeal was deposited in the institutions internal mail system and whether first-class postage was prepaid, or otherwise show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of this court. [12164239] (WL) [Entered: 07/06/2021 04:56 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 05/20/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12163321] (WL) [Entered: 07/06/2021 11:41 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: Paul Gilmore v. Ron Haynes | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: PAUL ALAN GILMORE | |
| Represented By: | Paul Alan Gilmore |
| 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: RON HAYNES | |
| 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.
