Craig Jones v. Attorney General for the State of Arizona, et al
| CHARLES L. RYAN |
| CRAIG MURRAY JONES |
| ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA and DAVID SHINN, Director |
| 22-16132 |
| July 29, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Sent Appellant a copy of the docket sheet and the brief received in response to the letter of request filed on 08/30/2022. [12531701] (JR) [Entered: 09/01/2022 12:11 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed - Charles L. Ryan letter dated 08/22/2022 re: Requesting conformed, stamped copy of informal opening brief. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12529830] (HH) [Entered: 08/30/2022 02:37 PM] |
| Filing 4 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Craig Murray Jones opening brief of 45 pages (Informal: No). Served on 08/11/2022. Served by Court via CM/ECF. Major deficiency: no briefing schedule, fees are due, no certificate of service on appellee's counsel. [12515939] (KWG) [Entered: 08/12/2022 11:35 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Craig Murray Jones letter dated 08/02/2022 re: Requesting informal brief (Already sent, DE [ # 2 ]. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12510717] (HH) [Entered: 08/05/2022 02:45 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Craig Murray Jones letter dated 08/02/2022 re: requesting informal brief (Informal brief form sent). Paper filing deficiency: None. [12507985] (HH) [Entered: 08/02/2022 03:59 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 06/24/2022. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12504963] (JMR) [Entered: 07/29/2022 10:32 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.
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.
