Eugene Rutledge v. A. Martinez
| EUGENE DARRELL RUTLEDGE |
| A. L. MARTINEZ |
| 23-15238 |
| February 22, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Eugene Darrell Rutledge motion for certificate of appealability, to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 02/15/2023. [12660963] (HH) [Entered: 02/24/2023 12:34 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 02/03/2023. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12658454] (JMR) [Entered: 02/22/2023 10:50 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: Eugene Rutledge v. A. Martinez | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: EUGENE DARRELL RUTLEDGE | |
| Represented By: | Eugene Darrell Rutledge |
| 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. L. MARTINEZ | |
| 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.
