Barton Williams v. Laurie Smith
| BARTON WILLIAMS |
| LAURIE SMITH, Sheriff |
| 22-15950 |
| June 28, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Prisoner-Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Barton Williams response to order to show cause (doument titled: request for permission to file notice of appeal and declaration of plaintiff). Served on 08/02/2022. [12527575] (RL) [Entered: 08/26/2022 02:54 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Barton Williams FORM 24 motion for appointment of counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 08/22/2022. (Change of address: AX-9821, Centinela State Prison, PO Box 731, Imperial, CA 92251) [12527549] --[Edited: Updated Address. 08/26/2022 by TYL] (RL) [Entered: 08/26/2022 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: AT): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on March 24, 2022. Appellant filed a post-judgment motion on April 20, 2022, which the district court denied on April 21, 2022. Appellants notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials on June 9, 2022, and received by the district court on June 22, 2022. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment or post-judgment order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (notice of appeal deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12509956] (OC) [Entered: 08/04/2022 04:11 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Barton Williams opening brief due 08/22/2022. Appellee Laurie Smith answering brief due 09/20/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12481726] (ABT) [Entered: 06/28/2022 10:39 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: Barton Williams v. Laurie Smith | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: BARTON WILLIAMS | |
| Represented By: | Barton Williams |
| 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 ] |
| Defendant / appellee: LAURIE SMITH, Sheriff | |
| Represented By: | Stephen Harry Schmid |
| Represented By: | James Robyzad Williams Esquire |
| 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.
