Kelvin Allen v. Christian Pfeiffer

Kelvin Allen v. Christian Pfeiffer

Respondent / Appellee:	CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden
Petitioner / Appellant:	KELVIN ALLEN
Case Number:	21-55574
Filed:	June 3, 2021
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
July 22, 2021	Filing 2 Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): The district court entered judgment on June 5, 2020. On July 20, 2020, appellant filed pro se a motion for permission to appeal that both evidenced an intent to appeal and alleged he did not receive notice of entry of judgment until July 8, 2020. The district court granted appellants motion on August 19, 2020. Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal on June 1, 2021. This appeal is deemed timely in light of appellants July 20, 2020 filing, which is fairly construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and the district courts August 19, 2020 order granting permission to file a late appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that statement in notice of appeal that pro se appellant did not receive timely notice of entry of judgment should be construed as motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)).The district court entered judgment on June 5, 2020. On July 20, 2020, appellant filed pro se a motion for permission to appeal that both evidenced an intent to appeal and alleged he did not receive notice of entry of judgment until July 8, 2020. The district court granted appellants motion on August 19, 2020. Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal on June 1, 2021. This appeal is deemed timely in light of appellants July 20, 2020 filing, which is fairly construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and the district courts August 19, 2020 order granting permission to file a late appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that statement in notice of appeal that pro se appellant did not receive timely notice of entry of judgment should be construed as motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)). The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside the core of habeas corpus if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12180487] (AF) [Entered: 07/22/2021 03:04 PM]
June 3, 2021	Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 06/05/2020. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12133234] (OC) [Entered: 06/03/2021 04:26 PM]

Date Filed

Document Text

July 22, 2021

Filing 2 Filed order (WILLIAM C. CANBY and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): The district court entered judgment on June 5, 2020. On July 20, 2020, appellant filed pro se a motion for permission to appeal that both evidenced an intent to appeal and alleged he did not receive notice of entry of judgment until July 8, 2020. The district court granted appellants motion on August 19, 2020. Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal on June 1, 2021. This appeal is deemed timely in light of appellants July 20, 2020 filing, which is fairly construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and the district courts August 19, 2020 order granting permission to file a late appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that statement in notice of appeal that pro se appellant did not receive timely notice of entry of judgment should be construed as motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)).The district court entered judgment on June 5, 2020. On July 20, 2020, appellant filed pro se a motion for permission to appeal that both evidenced an intent to appeal and alleged he did not receive notice of entry of judgment until July 8, 2020. The district court granted appellants motion on August 19, 2020. Appellant filed a separate notice of appeal on June 1, 2021. This appeal is deemed timely in light of appellants July 20, 2020 filing, which is fairly construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, and the district courts August 19, 2020 order granting permission to file a late appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6); United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that statement in notice of appeal that pro se appellant did not receive timely notice of entry of judgment should be construed as motion to reopen time to appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)). The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside the core of habeas corpus if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 645 (2017). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12180487] (AF) [Entered: 07/22/2021 03:04 PM]

June 3, 2021

Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 06/05/2020. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12133234] (OC) [Entered: 06/03/2021 04:26 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: Kelvin Allen v. Christian Pfeiffer
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent / appellee: CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Warden
Represented By:	Jennifer O. Cano
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 ]
Petitioner / appellant: KELVIN ALLEN
Represented By:	Kelvin Allen
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?