David Wilson v. Stuart Sherman

David Wilson v. Stuart Sherman

Petitioner / Appellant:	DAVID WAYNE WILSON
Respondent / Appellee:	STUART SHERMAN, Warden
Case Number:	22-55313
Filed:	March 29, 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: Appellants notice of appeal, deposited for mailing on March 23, 2022, and filed March 28, 2022, states that he did not receive timely notice of entry of the district courts order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Although a pro se notice of appeal can be treated as a motion to reopen time for appeal, see United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011), we cannot do so here because appellants notice of appeal was filed more than 180 days after entry of the district courts September 21, 2021, order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the notice of appeal was not timely filed as to the district courts August 10, 2021, order or its September 21, 2021, order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107, 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12434672] (AF) [Entered: 04/29/2022 11:57 AM]
March 29, 2022	Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 08/10/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12407917] (WL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 04:18 PM]

Date Filed

Document Text

April 29, 2022

Filing 2 Filed order (SUSAN P. GRABER and RICHARD C. TALLMAN: Appellants notice of appeal, deposited for mailing on March 23, 2022, and filed March 28, 2022, states that he did not receive timely notice of entry of the district courts order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Although a pro se notice of appeal can be treated as a motion to reopen time for appeal, see United States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011), we cannot do so here because appellants notice of appeal was filed more than 180 days after entry of the district courts September 21, 2021, order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the notice of appeal was not timely filed as to the district courts August 10, 2021, order or its September 21, 2021, order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107, 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [12434672] (AF) [Entered: 04/29/2022 11:57 AM]

March 29, 2022

Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 08/10/2021. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12407917] (WL) [Entered: 03/29/2022 04:18 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: David Wilson v. Stuart Sherman
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner / appellant: DAVID WAYNE WILSON
Represented By:	David Wayne Wilson
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: STUART SHERMAN, Warden
Represented By:	Louis Karlin
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?