Pete Kefalas v. William Gittere, et al
| PETE KEFALAS |
| WILLIAM GITTERE and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA |
| 22-15533 |
| April 12, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed order (JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN) We have received and reviewed appellants response to this courts April 13, 2022, order to show cause. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and appellant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. See 28 U.S.C. 2107, 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (If an institution has a system designed for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the benefit of this Rule 4(c)(1).); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (recognizing the importance of prison mail logs when determining whether a prisoner is entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12455448] (WL) [Entered: 05/24/2022 04:11 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Pete Kefalas response to court order. Served on 04/20/2022. [12432116] (HH) [Entered: 04/27/2022 09:36 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): The district court judgment was entered on October 19, 2021. Appellants notice of appeal from that judgment was dated November 1, 2021, but was not filed until April 12, 2022. 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). Appellant must also include a copy of his outgoing prison mail log. A response may be filed within 10 days after service of appellants declaration. 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. [12419615] (WL) [Entered: 04/13/2022 09:29 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 10/19/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12419095] (WL) [Entered: 04/12/2022 03:41 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.
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.
