Perez v. Pfeiffer
| JESSE PEREZ |
| CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, WARDEN |
| 22-1039 |
| June 14, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 CASE TRANSFERRED. Transferred Case via electronic notice (nda) to U.S.D.C. Central California, Riverside - District Court Case Number 5:22-CV-01542-PA-E - all materials available on PACER.- Per ORDER FILED 8/23/2022. [Entered: 08/24/2022 04:43:00 PM] [Edited: 09/02/2022 12:04:00 PM] |
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. Sidney R. THOMAS, Richard A. PAEZ, Kenneth K. LEE The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court is denied to the extent the applicant seeks to challenge the 1997 guilty-plea conviction or sentence. The applicant has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) that: (A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED, in part, DENIED AS UNNECESSARY, in part. [Entered: 08/23/2022 02:03:00 PM]
|
| Filing 3 SOS DOCKETING NOTICE. Application for Permission to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition has been opened and assigned the Ninth Circuit case number 22-1039. All subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will be added to your file to be considered at the same time the cause is brought before the court. The case number and the title of your case should be shown in the upper right corner of any correspondence to the clerk's office, and should be directed to the above address pursuant to Circuit Rule 25-1. [Entered: 06/14/2022 03:44:00 PM] |
| Filing 2 CASE OPENED. Application for Leave to File Second or Successive 2254 Petition has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 6/14/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-1039 has been assigned to this case. [Entered: 06/14/2022 03:42:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 Application for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. 2254 Second or Successive Petition. [Entered: 06/14/2022 03:28:00 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Perez v. Pfeiffer | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: JESSE PEREZ | |
| Represented By: | Jesse Perez |
| 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: CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, WARDEN | |
| 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.
