Cifuentes v. Garland
| MARVIN CIFUENTES |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 21-769 |
| September 20, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 33
ORDER FILED. Danny J. Boggs, Milan D. SMITH, Jr., John B. OWENS Submission is vacated, and resubmission is deferred pending a decision in 9th Cir. Case No. 20-71923, De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland, or further order of this court. [Entered: 03/29/2023 03:08 PM]
|
| Filing 32 SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS to Danny J. Boggs, Milan D. SMITH, Jr., John B. OWENS. [Entered: 03/27/2023 11:24 PM] |
|
Filing 31
ORDER FILED. The parties joint motion to submit the case on the briefs and record (Dkt No. 28) is GRANTED. Therefore, this matter is ordered submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument on March 27, 2023, in San Francisco, California. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). [Entered: 03/07/2023 02:41 PM]
|
| Filing 30 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Monday, March 27, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 3 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. At this time, even when in person hearings resume, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion, and any attorney wishing to appear in person must provide proof of vaccination. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you at least two weeks before the argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance. Please note however that if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [Entered: 03/06/2023 09:54 AM] |
| Filing 29 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Carmel Aileen Morgan for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/03/2023 09:01 AM] |
| Filing 28 MOTION to submit case on briefs without oral argument filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/20/2023 09:23 AM] |
| Filing 27 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Friday, March 31, 2023 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 3 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you may appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. At this time, even when in person hearings resume, an election to appear remotely by video will not require a motion, and any attorney wishing to appear in person must provide proof of vaccination. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you at least two weeks before the argument date to review any requirements for in person appearance or to make any necessary arrangements for remote appearance. Please note however that if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to file a motion requesting permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [Entered: 01/17/2023 10:49 AM] |
| Filing 26 NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco, CA. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for March 6-10 and March 27-31, 2023 at #http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. If you have an unavoidable conflict on either of the dates, please file Form 32 (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully. When setting your argument date, the court will try to work around unavoidable conflicts; the court is not able to accommodate mere scheduling preferences. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a motion within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. [Entered: 11/18/2022 09:31 AM] |
| Filing 25 CITATION of supplemental authorities (28j Letter) filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/03/2022 02:21 PM] |
| Filing 24 Paper copies (6) of Answering Brief submitted at DE 22 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland received 03/30/2022. [Entered: 03/31/2022 09:54:00 AM] |
|
Filing 23
ORDER FILED. Answering Brief submitted at DE 22 by Respondent Merrick B. Garland is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Respondent must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with red front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 03/24/2022 01:45:00 PM]
|
| Filing 22 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 03/24/2022 11:39:00 AM] |
|
Filing 21
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Answering Brief for 30 days (DE 20) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Respondent Answering Brief due 3/24/2022. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. [Entered: 02/11/2022 03:14:00 PM]
|
| Filing 20 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file answering brief for 30 days filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 02/11/2022 12:42:00 PM] |
| Filing 19 TERMINATED participation of Jennifer A. Singer representing Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/25/2022 02:56:00 PM] |
| Filing 18 ADDED Carmel Aileen Morgan for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/25/2022 02:55:00 PM] |
| Filing 17 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Carmel Aileen Morgan for Merrick B. Garland replacing OIL, replacing Jennifer A. Singer. [Entered: 01/25/2022 01:30:00 PM] |
| Filing 16 Paper copies (6) of Opening Brief submitted at DE 13 by Petitioner Marvin Cifuentes received 12/27/2021. [Entered: 12/28/2021 09:27:00 AM] |
|
Filing 15
ORDER FILED. Motion to Stay Removal (DE 3) not opposed. [Entered: 11/23/2021 10:54:00 AM]
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 13 by Petitioner Marvin Cifuentes is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Petitioner must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with blue front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 11/18/2021 01:44:00 PM]
|
| Filing 13 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Marvin Cifuentes. [Entered: 11/17/2021 07:53:00 AM] [Edited: 11/18/2021 01:02:00 PM] |
| Filing 12 STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 11/15/2021 08:10:00 AM] |
|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis or Form 4 (DE 4) granted. [Entered: 11/12/2021 04:30:00 PM]
|
| Filing 10 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed. [Entered: 10/13/2021 09:49:00 AM] |
| Filing 9 ADDED Jennifer A. Singer for Merrick B. Garland Respondent. [Entered: 09/23/2021 01:43:00 PM] |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jennifer A. Singer for Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 09/23/2021 12:43:00 PM] |
| Filing 7 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 10/25/2021, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 11/15/2021, Petitioner Opening Brief due 12/25/2021, Respondent Answering Brief due 2/22/2022. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 09/20/2021 09:24:00 AM] |
| Filing 6 CASE OPENED. Petition for Review has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 9/19/2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 21-769 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants), review the #Appellate Practice Guide, and counsel for petitioner(s) should also review the #Immigration Outline and consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 09/20/2021 09:21:00 AM] |
| Filing 5 DEFECTIVE --- MOTION for appointment of counsel filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 09/19/2021 02:51:00 PM] Wrong filing type used. [Edited: 09/21/2021 09:42:00 AM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 09/19/2021 02:51:00 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s); REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 09/19/2021 02:44:00 PM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 9/2/2021. [Entered: 09/19/2021 02:43:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 09/19/2021 02:43:00 PM] COURT UPDATE: Attached document from defective filing DE #5 [Edited: 09/21/2021 09:46:00 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: Cifuentes v. Garland | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: MARVIN CIFUENTES | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Joseph LaCome |
| 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: MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| Represented By: | Ms. Carmel Aileen Morgan |
| Represented By: | Oil |
| 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.
