Joshua Godfrey v. PBSP Warden
| JOSHUA MICHAEL GODFREY |
| PBSP WARDEN |
| 23-15082 |
| January 23, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MM) Appellants motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal (Docket Entry No. [ # 3 ]) is granted. This appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This order served on the district court acts as the mandate of this court. [12655154] (JMR) [Entered: 02/16/2023 03:28 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Joshua Michael Godfrey motion to dismiss case pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Deficiencies: None. Served on 01/31/2023. [12648547] (BJK) [Entered: 02/07/2023 06:17 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): On June 29, 2022, the magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations in the district court action. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the June 29, 2022 findings and recommendations, served on July 12, 2022 and filed in the district court on August 1, 2022. On August 2, 2022, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations and entered a final order and judgment. On January 18, 2023, the district court entered an order directing the district court Clerk to process appellants notice of appeal from the magistrate judges June 29, 2022 findings and recommendations, resulting in the opening of this appeal No. 23-15082. A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the June 29, 2022, the magistrate judge findings and recommendations challenged in the appeal are not final or appealable, and a premature appeal from a magistrate judges findings and recommendations is not cured by a subsequent entry of a final judgment in the district court. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir. 1993) (magistrate judges findings and recommendations not appealable; premature appeal not cured by subsequent entry of final judgment by district court); see also Burnside v. Jacquez, 731 F.3d 874, 875 (9th Cir. 2013) (a notice of appeal from a magistrate judges report and recommendation is ineffective; the district courts transmitting of the premature notice of appeal until after the entry of a final judgment does not convert it into an effective notice of appeal). The district court docket reflects that, to date, appellant has not filed in the district court a notice of appeal from the district courts final judgment entered on August 2, 2022, or a motion to reopen the time to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B) (motion to reopen the time to appeal must be filed in the district court within 180 days after entry of the judgment or within 14 days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment, whichever is earlier). Within 10 days after the date of this order, appellant must either file a motion in this court to voluntarily dismiss this appeal, or file a statement showing cause why this appeal of the June 29, 2022 magistrate judges findings and recommendations should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, appellant is directed to include in the response a signed statement declaring the date that appellant first received notice of the August 2, 2022 judgment. Appellee may file any response within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is stayed. The Clerk will send appellant a form motion to voluntarily dismiss along with this order. [12636454] (CKP) [Entered: 01/23/2023 04:16 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12635782] (WL) [Entered: 01/23/2023 10:51 AM] |
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: Joshua Godfrey v. PBSP Warden | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: JOSHUA MICHAEL GODFREY | |
| Represented By: | Joshua Michael Godfrey |
| 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: PBSP WARDEN | |
| Represented By: | Jennifer Gwen Ross |
| 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.
