Ruiz Godor v. Garland
| CARLOS EDUARDO RUIZ GODOR |
| MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 22-2080 |
| December 28, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Zachary Scott Hughbanks [Entered: 10/06/2023 03:49 PM] |
| Filing 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Zachary Scott Hughbanks for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 10/06/2023 03:27 PM] |
| Filing 17 Paper copies (6) of Opening Brief submitted at DE 15 by Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor received. [Entered: 07/26/2023 02:00 PM] |
Filing 16
ORDER FILED. Opening Brief submitted at DE 15 by Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor is filed. Within 7 days of this order, Petitioner must file 6 copies of the brief in paper format bound with blue front cover pages. Each copy must include certification at the end that the copy is identical to the electronic version. The paper copies must be sent to the Clerks principal office. [Entered: 07/20/2023 12:57 PM]
|
| Filing 15 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor. [Entered: 07/20/2023 11:39 AM] |
|
Filing 14
ORDER FILED. Petitioner's motion (Docket Entry No. 13) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due October 2, 2023. The answering brief is due December 1, 2023. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 07/14/2023 02:24 PM]
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to extend time to file opening brief filed by Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor. [Entered: 07/03/2023 06:22 PM] |
|
Filing 12
ORDER FILED. Petitioner's unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 11) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due July 3, 2023. The answering brief is due September 1, 2023. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 03/23/2023 02:56 PM]
|
| Filing 11 MOTION to extend time to file opening brief filed by Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor. [Entered: 03/22/2023 06:22 PM] |
| Filing 10 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner Carlos Eduardo Ruiz Godor. [Entered: 03/10/2023 04:01 PM] |
| Filing 9 OPPOSITION to motion to stay removal filed by Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 02/22/2023 07:28 AM] |
| Filing 8 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by DOJ Executive Office Of Immigration Review. [Entered: 01/17/2023 04:48 AM] |
| Filing 7 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Linda Y. Cheng for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/03/2023 09:54 AM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Linda Y. Cheng for Respondent Merrick B. Garland. [Entered: 01/03/2023 07:05 AM] |
| Filing 5 BRIEFING SCHEDULE NOTICE. Certified Administrative Record due 2/1/2023, Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed with PFR) due 2/22/2023, Immigration Petitioner Opening Brief due 4/3/2023, Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due 6/1/2023. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 12/28/2022 09:14 AM] |
| Filing 4 CASE OPENED. Petition for Review has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 12/27/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-2080 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants), review the #Appellate Practice Guide, and counsel for petitioner(s) should also review the #Immigration Outline and consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 12/28/2022 09:12 AM] |
| Filing 3 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 11/29/2022. [Entered: 12/28/2022 09:11 AM] |
| Filing 2 MOTION TO STAY REMOVAL filed by Petitioner(s); REMOVAL STAYED pending further order of the court per General Order 6.4(c). [Entered: 12/28/2022 09:11 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner(s). [Entered: 12/28/2022 09:11 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: Ruiz Godor v. Garland | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: CARLOS EDUARDO RUIZ GODOR | |
| Represented By: | Sergio Siderman |
| 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: MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL | |
| Represented By: | Linda Y. Cheng |
| Represented By: | Mr. Zachary Scott Hughbanks |
| Represented By: | Oil |
| 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.
