Gowdy v. Pfeiffer
| CARL EUGENE GOWDY |
| CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, WARDEN |
| 22-269 |
| February 14, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Barry G. SILVERMAN, Eric D. MILLER, Patrick J. BUMATAY The 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition, transferred to this court from the district court pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-3, is treated as an application for authorization to file a second or successive 2254 habeas petition. So treated, the application is denied. The applicant has not made a prima facie showing under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2) that: (A) the claim relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or (B)(i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. Any other pending motions are denied as moot.No further filings will be entertained in this case.DENIED. [Entered: 03/18/2022 04:36:00 PM]
|
| Filing 4 SOS TRANSFER FROM DISTRICT COURT DOCKETING NOTICE.Application for Permission to File a Second or Successive Habeas Corpus Petition transferred to this Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit), from the district court has been opened and assigned the Ninth Circuit case number 22-269. All subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will be added to your file to be considered at the same time the cause is brought before the court. The Ninth Circuit case number and the title of your case should be shown in the upper right corner of any correspondence to the clerk's office, and should be directed to the above address pursuant to Circuit Rule 25-1. [Entered: 02/15/2022 08:49:00 AM] Edited to generate correct paper package. [Edited: 02/15/2022 09:00:00 AM] |
| Filing 3 CASE OPENED. Application for Leave to File Second or Successive 2254 Petition has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 2/14/2022. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 22-269 has been assigned to this case. [Entered: 02/15/2022 08:47:00 AM] |
| Filing 2 Application for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. 2254 Second or Successive Petition. [Entered: 02/14/2022 04:47:00 PM] |
| Filing 1 District Court Transfer Order [Entered: 02/14/2022 04:47:00 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: Gowdy v. Pfeiffer | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: CARL EUGENE GOWDY | |
| Represented By: | Carl Eugene Gowdy |
| 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: CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, WARDEN | |
| 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.
