Wade Limehouse v. David Shinn, et al
| WADE AARON LIMEHOUSE |
| DAVID SHINN, Director and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA |
| 23-15390 |
| March 16, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Wade Aaron Limehouse motion for certificate of appealability. Deficiencies: Case closed. Served on 05/06/2023. [12714781] (BJK) [Entered: 05/12/2023 11:53 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to order. (Order dated 03/24/2023), This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to order. (Order dated 03/24/2023), This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) . Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to order. (Order dated 03/24/2023). This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. Filed order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to order. (Order dated 03/24/2023). This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as the mandate of this court. {dktEntryId (CKP) [Entered: 04/27/2023 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the March 14, 2023 notice of appeal is not final or appealable. 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). To date, appellant has not filed a notice of appeal from the district courts final judgment entered on March 23, 2023. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or file a statement showing cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. [12681723] (CKP) [Entered: 03/24/2023 04:46 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket. No COA order in district court. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12675778] (WL) [Entered: 03/16/2023 04:37 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.
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.
