Raul Arellano v. Daniel Paramo

Raul Arellano v. Daniel Paramo

Petitioner / Appellant:	RAUL ARELLANO
Respondent / Appellee:	DANIEL PARAMO, Warden
Case Number:	22-55227
Filed:	March 2, 2022
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on April 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
April 29, 2022	Filing 2 Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) This appeal is from the denial of appellants Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and, (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section [2254 petition] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1993) (order). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12434899] (WL) [Entered: 04/29/2022 02:18 PM]
March 2, 2022	Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 01/25/2022. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12384652] (RT) [Entered: 03/02/2022 03:12 PM]

Date Filed

Document Text

April 29, 2022

Filing 2 Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER and RICHARD C. TALLMAN) This appeal is from the denial of appellants Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and, (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the underlying section [2254 petition] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir. 1993) (order). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12434899] (WL) [Entered: 04/29/2022 02:18 PM]

March 2, 2022

Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 01/25/2022. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12384652] (RT) [Entered: 03/02/2022 03:12 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: Raul Arellano v. Daniel Paramo
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner / appellant: RAUL ARELLANO
Represented By:	Raul Arellano
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: DANIEL PARAMO, Warden
Represented By:	Daniel Rogers
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.

Why Is My Information Online?