James Wilson v. Bludsworth, et al
| JAMES RONALD WILSON |
| BLUDSWORTH and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA |
| 22-35845 |
| October 26, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): The court has received and reviewed appellants response to this courts October 27, 2022, order to show cause. In the response, appellant attests that he delivered the notice of appeal to prison authorities on October 12, 2022, within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c)(1). Accordingly, the order to show cause is discharged. Appellants request for a certificate of appealability will be addressed in a future order. [12590068] (OC) [Entered: 11/17/2022 12:32 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant James Ronald Wilson response to order to show cause. Served on 11/08/2022. [12588984] (DJV) [Entered: 11/16/2022 01:55 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KB): The district court judgment was entered on September 12, 2022. Appellants notice of appeal from that judgment was dated October 12, 2022, but was not filed until October 25, 2022. Thus, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment. See 28 U.S.C 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Because appellant is a pro se prisoner, however, the notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Within 21 days after this order, appellant must file with this court a declaration or notarized statement attesting to the date on which the notice of appeal was deposited in the institutions internal mail system and whether first-class postage was prepaid, or otherwise show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). 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. Briefing is suspended pending further order of this court. [12574085] (OC) [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:44 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 09/12/2022. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12573308] (WL) [Entered: 10/26/2022 12:02 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
