Frank Atwood v. David Shinn, et al
| FRANK JARVIS ATWOOD |
| DAVID SHINN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, JAMES KIMBLE, Warden, ASPC-Eyman, JEFFREY VAN WINKLE, Warden, ASPC-Florence, LANCE HETMER, Assistant Director for Prison Operations, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry, MARK BRNOVICH, Attorney General, Attorney General of Arizona and UNKNOWN PARTY, Named as John Doe - Arizona-Licensed Pharmacist |
| ACLU CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PROJECT, ACLU OF ARIZONA and ARIZONA CAPITAL REPRESENTATION PROJECT |
| RACHEL ATWOOD |
| 22-15821 |
| June 4, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 33
Criminal Justice Act electronic voucher created. (Counsel: Ms. Amy Pickering Knight, Esquire for Frank Jarvis Atwood) [12468353] (DR) [Entered: 06/10/2022 11:17 AM]
|
|
Filing 32
Supreme Court Case Info Case number: 21-8084 Filed on: 06/07/2022 Cert Petition Action 1: Pending [12466329] (RL) [Entered: 06/08/2022 11:03 AM]
|
|
Filing 31
Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and SANDRA S. IKUTA) The pro se motion, filed by or on behalf of Rachel Atwood, Mr. Atwoods wife, seeks a stay of Mr. Atwoods execution. Mrs. Atwood is not a party to this litigation, but we construe the motion as including a request to intervene and we grant that request. The motion to stay execution is DENIED. The mandate has issued. [12466192] (SVG) [Entered: 06/08/2022 09:52 AM]
|
|
Filing 30
Filed Rachel Atwood's EMERGENCY motion for stay of execution. Deficiencies: None. Served on 06/08/2022. [12466178] (HH) [Entered: 06/08/2022 09:45 AM]
|
|
Filing 29
MANDATE ISSUED.(MMM, CMC and SSI) [12465595] (HH) [Entered: 06/07/2022 02:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 28
Filed Order for PUBLICATION (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The three-judge panel has issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the district court and denying the request for a stay of execution. The Appellant subsequently filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Pursuant to the rules applicable to capital cases when an execution date has been scheduled, a deadline was established for any judge to request a vote on whether the panel opinion should be reheard en banc. No judge requested a vote within the established time period. Therefore, en banc proceedings with respect to the panel opinion are concluded. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied. The panel opinion affirming the district court is the final order of this Court pertaining to this appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith. [12465545]--[Edited (attached corrected PDF) 06/07/2022 by AKM]--[Edited (attached reformatted slip op) 06/13/2022 by AKM] (AKM) [Entered: 06/07/2022 01:39 PM]
|
|
Filing 27
Filed (ECF) Appellees Mr. Mark Brnovich, Lance Hetmer, James Kimble, David Shinn and Jeffrey Van Winkle response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc (ECF Filing), Petition for Rehearing En Banc (ECF Filing). Date of service: 06/07/2022. [12465408]. [22-15821] (Sparks, Jeffrey) [Entered: 06/07/2022 12:05 PM]
|
|
Filing 26
Filed (ECF) Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood petition for rehearing en banc (from 06/07/2022 opinion). Date of service: 06/07/2022. [12465290] [22-15821]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached PDF of opinion. 06/07/2022 by SLM] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/07/2022 11:08 AM]
|
|
Filing 25
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) The three-judge panel has issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the district court as to this appeal and denying the request for a stay of execution. Any petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc as to either appeal must be filed by 11:30 a.m., Pacific time on June 7, 2022. If a petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc is filed, the Appellees are permitted, but not required, to file a response brief no later than 1:30 p.m., Pacific time on June 7, 2022.[12465056] (SVG) [Entered: 06/07/2022 09:02 AM]
|
|
Filing 24
FILED PER CURIAM OPINION (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and SANDRA S. IKUTA) AFFIRMED. Atwoods motions for a stay of execution are denied. Atwoods motion to bifurcate ruling is denied. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [12464923]--[Edited (attached reformatted slip op) 06/13/2022 by AKM] (AKM) [Entered: 06/07/2022 07:10 AM]
|
|
Filing 23
Filed (ECF) Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood Urgent Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion to Bifurcate Ruling]. Date of service: 06/06/2022. [12464719] [22-15821] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/06/2022 04:30 PM]
|
|
Filing 22
Filed Audio recording of oral argument. Note: Video recordings of public argument calendars are available on the Court's website, at # http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/ [12464628] (SVG) [Entered: 06/06/2022 03:45 PM]
|
|
Filing 21
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED TO M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and SANDRA S. IKUTA. [12464514] (SVG) [Entered: 06/06/2022 02:53 PM]
|
|
Filing 20
Added Attorney Joseph Perkovich for Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood, in case 22-15821. [12463828] (HH) [Entered: 06/06/2022 09:09 AM]
|
|
Filing 19
Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Joseph J. Perkovich (Phillips Black, Inc.; P.O. Box 4544; New York, NY 10163-4544) for Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood. Date of service: 06/06/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12463806] [22-15821] (Perkovich, Joseph) [Entered: 06/06/2022 08:58 AM]
|
|
Filing 18
Filed clerk order: The amicus brief [ # 16 ] submitted by ACLU Capital Punishment Project, ACLU of Arizona, and Arizona Capital Representation Project is filed. No paper copies are required. [12463621] (LA) [Entered: 06/05/2022 07:00 PM]
|
|
Filing 17
Entered appearance of Amici Curiae ACLU Capital Punishment Project, ACLU of Arizona and Arizona Capital Representation Project. [12463619] (LA) [Entered: 06/05/2022 06:58 PM]
|
|
Filing 16
Submitted (ECF) Amicus brief for review (by government or with consent per FRAP 29(a)). Submitted by ACLU Capital Punishment Project, ACLU Foundation of Arizona, and Arizona Capital Representation Project. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463618] [22-15821] (Skinner, Emily) [Entered: 06/05/2022 06:41 PM]
|
|
Filing 15
Filed clerk order: The reply brief [ # 14 ] submitted by Frank Jarvis Atwood is filed. No paper copies are required. [12463615] (KWG) [Entered: 06/05/2022 06:24 PM]
|
|
Filing 14
Submitted (ECF) Reply Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463612] [22-15821]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached corrected PDF of the brief. 06/05/2022 by KWG] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/05/2022 05:54 PM]
|
|
Filing 13
Filed clerk order: The answering brief [ # 12 ] submitted by appellees is filed. No paper copies are required. [12463607] (LA) [Entered: 06/05/2022 03:16 PM]
|
|
Filing 12
Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Mr. Mark Brnovich, Lance Hetmer, James Kimble, David Shinn and Jeffrey Van Winkle. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463605] [22-15821] (Sparks, Jeffrey) [Entered: 06/05/2022 02:47 PM]
|
|
Filing 11
Filed clerk order: The opening briefs [ # 3 ], [ # 6 ] and excerpts of record [ # 7 ] submitted by Frank Jarvis Atwood are filed. No paper copies are required. [12463604] (SML) [Entered: 06/05/2022 02:14 PM]
|
|
Filing 10
Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and SANDRA S. IKUTA) Appellant Frank Atwoods petitions for initial hearing en banc, contained within his opening briefs, are referred to this panel pursuant to Ninth Circuit General Order 5.2. The petitions are denied. This order is without prejudice to any petitions for rehearing en banc filed after the panel has issued its opinion.[12463601] (SVG) [Entered: 06/05/2022 01:33 PM]
|
|
Filing 9
Notice of Oral Argument on Monday, June 6, 2022 - 1:30 P.M. - Scheduled Location: Courtroom 2 - San Francisco CA. The hearing time is the local time zone at the scheduled hearing location, even if the argument is fully remote. 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 have the option to appear in person at the Courthouse or remotely by video. Check # here for updates on the status of reopening as the hearing date approaches. 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 . The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some Judges will continue to appear remotely. If the panel determines that it will hold oral argument in your case, the Clerk's Office will contact you directly at least two weeks before the set 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 do elect to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, 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, including when to be available (30 minutes before the hearing time) and when and how to submit additional citations (filing electronically as far in advance of the hearing as possible). If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the # ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in CM/ECF no later than 28 days before Monday, June 6, 2022. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [12463599] (AML) [Entered: 06/05/2022 11:14 AM]
|
|
Filing 8
Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN and SANDRA S. IKUTA) Although appellant was not authorized to submit two opening briefs, in light of the time sensitivity involved, the Clerk is directed to file both briefs. Appellees shall file one consolidated answering brief, and appellant shall file one consolidated reply brief. The requests for initial hearing en banc, contained within each opening brief, will be addressed by separate order. Remote oral argument in this appeal shall be scheduled for 1:30 PM PDT on Monday, June 6, 2022. [12463590] (SVG) [Entered: 06/05/2022 10:20 AM]
|
|
Filing 7
Submitted (ECF) excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463588] [22-15821]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached index volume and corrected volume IX. 06/05/2022 by SML] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/05/2022 09:11 AM]
|
|
Filing 6
Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463587] [22-15821] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/05/2022 08:58 AM]
|
|
Filing 5
Filed (ECF) Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood EMERGENCY Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion for Stay of Execution re Preliminary Injunction on Lethal Injection]. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463586] [22-15821] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/05/2022 08:57 AM]
|
|
Filing 4
Filed (ECF) Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood EMERGENCY Motion for miscellaneous relief [Motion for stay of execution]. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463585] [22-15821] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/05/2022 08:41 AM]
|
|
Filing 3
Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Frank Jarvis Atwood. Date of service: 06/05/2022. [12463584] [22-15821] (Knight, Amy) [Entered: 06/05/2022 08:33 AM]
|
|
Filing 2
Filed clerk order (MCD): The expedited briefing schedule for this appeal is set as follows. The opening brief and any other requests for relief are due Sunday, June 5, 2022 by 9 a.m. Pacific Time. The answering brief is due Sunday, June 5, 2022 by 3 p.m. Pacific Time. The reply brief is due Sunday, June 5, 2022 by 6 p.m. Pacific Time. [12463583] (HH) [Entered: 06/04/2022 09:49 PM]
|
|
Filing 1
DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 Preliminary Injunction Appeal.[12463580] (HH) [Entered: 06/04/2022 08:02 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.
