Daniel Ragan v. C. Ducart
| DANIEL RAGAN |
| C. DUCART |
| 22-16574 |
| October 13, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Daniel Ragan motion for certificate of appealability. Deficiencies: None. [12575752]--[Edited 10/28/2022 by JFF] (JFF) [Entered: 10/28/2022 02:22 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): Appellants motion to extend time in which to respond to this courts jurisdictional order to show cause (Docket Entry No. [ # 3 ]) is granted. Appellants response is due on or before December 27, 2022. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of appellants memorandum. 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. [12575406] (AF) [Entered: 10/28/2022 11:16 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Daniel Ragan motion to extend time to comply with the order dated 10/14/2022. Deficiencies: None. [12573695] (QDL) [Entered: 10/26/2022 03:33 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): The record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this request for a certificate of appealability because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment on August 19, 2022. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Appellant does not appear to be entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule because the proof of service suggests that a third party mailed the notice of appeal on his behalf and did not deposit the filing for mailing in the prisons internal mail system. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (If an institution has a system designed for legal mail, an inmate confined there must use that system to receive the benefit of this Rule 4(c)(1).); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). The record does not reflect that appellant has filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen the time for appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and 26(b)(1). Within 21 days after this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of this request for a certificate of appealability 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 appellants memorandum. 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. [12563707] (JBS) [Entered: 10/14/2022 01:20 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 09/19/2022. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12562720] (WL) [Entered: 10/13/2022 02:13 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.
| Search for this case: Daniel Ragan v. C. Ducart | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: DANIEL RAGAN | |
| Represented By: | Daniel Ragan |
| 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 / appellee: C. DUCART | |
| Represented By: | Charity S. Whitney |
| 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.
