Charles Clements v. Raymond Madden, et al
Petitioner / Appellant: CHARLES CRAIG CLEMENTS
Respondent / Appellee: RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden and A MILLER, Warden
Case Number: 22-55333
Filed: April 1, 2022
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 23, 2022 Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: GS): Granting Motion [ # 5 ] (ECF Filing) filed by Appellant Charles Craig Clements; Appellant Charles Craig Clements opening brief due 08/29/2022. Appellees Raymond Madden, Warden and A Miller answering brief due 09/28/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12453466] (GS) [Entered: 05/23/2022 09:57 AM]
May 20, 2022 Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Craig Clements Unopposed Motion to extend time to file Opening brief until 08/29/2022. Date of service: 05/20/2022. [12452904] [22-55333] (Drozdowski, Mark) [Entered: 05/20/2022 03:29 PM]
April 29, 2022 Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Craig Clements Correspondence: Appellants notice that no transcripts will be ordered in this appeal. Date of service: 04/29/2022 [12434740] [22-55333] (Drozdowski, Mark) [Entered: 04/29/2022 12:52 PM]
April 28, 2022 Filing 3 Attorneys Jennifer Jadovitz and Lise S. Jacobson substituted by Attorney Daniel Rogers in 22-55333. [12433772] (HH) [Entered: 04/28/2022 02:10 PM]
April 28, 2022 Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Daniel Rogers (Office of the Attorney General (San Diego) 600 W Broadway Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101) for Appellees Raymond Madden and A Miller. Substitution for Jennifer Jadovitz for Appellees Raymond Madden and A Miller and Lise S. Jacobson for Appellee Raymond Madden. Date of service: 04/28/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12433644] [22-55333] (Rogers, Daniel) [Entered: 04/28/2022 01:02 PM]
April 1, 2022 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Charles Craig Clements opening brief due 05/31/2022. Appellees Raymond Madden, Warden and A Miller answering brief due 06/30/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12411125] (OC) [Entered: 04/01/2022 05:07 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: Charles Clements v. Raymond Madden, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner / appellant: CHARLES CRAIG CLEMENTS
Represented By: Mark Raymond Drozdowski Esquire
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: RAYMOND MADDEN, Warden
Represented By: Lise S. Jacobson
Represented By: Jennifer Jadovitz
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 ]
Respondent / appellee: A MILLER, Warden
Represented By: Jennifer Jadovitz
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?