<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="/xsl/rss2.xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Clinton King v. Jared Lozano :: Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</title>
        <link>https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/21-55257</link>
        <atom:link href="https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/21-55257/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2026 15:42:37 -0800</pubDate>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2026 15:42:37 -0800</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Justia Dockets &amp; Filings</generator>
        <copyright>Copyright 2026 Justia Inc</copyright>
        <description>Clinton King v. Jared Lozano - Docket Entries - Showing 1 through 4</description>
                                    <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 4]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                Filed Appellant Clinton Douglas King motion to reconsider Panel order of the Court filed on 04/20/2021. Deficiencies: None. (Entitled: petition for rehearing) [12106717] (RR) [Entered: 05/10/2021 06:13 AM]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_12345406</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Fri, 07 May 2021 00:00:00 -0700
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 3]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. [ # 2 ]) is denied because the underlying 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition fails to state any federal constitutional claims debatable among jurists of reason. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)-(3); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (When ... the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner seeking a COA must show both that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12081353] (OC) [Entered: 04/20/2021 04:03 PM]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_12345405</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:00:00 -0700
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 2]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                Filed Appellant Clinton Douglas King motion for certificate of appealability following denial of COA form the US District Court. Deficiencies: None. Served on 03/14/2021. [12049652] (RL) [Entered: 03/22/2021 03:11 PM]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_11732232</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 -0700
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                        <item>
        <title>
                            <![CDATA[Document 1]]>
                    </title>
                <description>
            <![CDATA[
                Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 02/18/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12047815] (JMR) [Entered: 03/19/2021 02:24 PM]
            ]]>
        </description>
                    <guid isPermaLink="false">https://dockets.justia.com#entry_11732231</guid>
                <pubDate>
            Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 -0700
        </pubDate>
    </item>
                </channel>
</rss>
