Erica Artavia Campbell v. Molly Hill
| ERICA ARTAVIA CAMPBELL |
| MOLLY HILL, Acting Warden |
| 22-55460 |
| May 6, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SM): Due to a clerical error, appellee did not receive a copy of Docket Entry no. [ # 5 ]. If appellee would like to respond to the courts May 11, 2022 order, any response is due within 10 days after the filing date of this order. [12479644] (WL) [Entered: 06/24/2022 02:52 PM] |
| Filing 5 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from appellant Erica Campbell. [12468685]--[COURT UPDATE: Attached PDF of envelope. 06/23/2022 by SLM] (RL) [Entered: 06/10/2022 02:15 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Erica Artavia Campbell request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(d). Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/03/2022. [12449840] (RL) [Entered: 05/18/2022 10:16 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Erica Artavia Campbell FORM 24 motion for appointment of counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/03/2022. [12449837] (RL) [Entered: 05/18/2022 10:14 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: KMB): The district court judgment was entered on March 30, 2022. Appellants notice of appeal from that judgment was dated April 29, 2022, but was not filed until May 4, 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 22-55460 (9th Cir. 2009). A response may be filed within 10 days after service of appellants declaration. 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. [12443964] (AF) [Entered: 05/11/2022 11:25 AM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 03/30/2022. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12440341] (OC) [Entered: 05/06/2022 12:22 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: Erica Artavia Campbell v. Molly Hill | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: ERICA ARTAVIA CAMPBELL | |
| Represented By: | Erica Artavia Campbell |
| 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: MOLLY HILL, Acting Warden | |
| Represented By: | Nathan Guttman |
| 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.
