Arturo Arevalo v. Tammy Campbell
| ARTURO AREVALO |
| TAMMY L. CAMPBELL, Warden |
| 23-16042 |
| July 27, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): The court has received and reviewed appellants response to this courts August 1, 2023, order to show cause. In the response, appellant states that he delivered his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing on July 23, 2023, and the attached prison mail log confirms that the notice of appeal was mailed to the district court and to this court on Monday, July 24, 2024. This was within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c)(1). Accordingly, the order to show cause (Docket Entry No. [ # 2 ]) is discharged. Appellants request for a certificate of appealability will be addressed in a future order. [12792098] (OC) [Entered: 09/14/2023 08:59 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Arturo Arevalo response to Court order dated 08/01/2023. [12784810] (QDL) [Entered: 08/31/2023 03:28 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): The district court judgment was entered on June 22, 2023. Appellants notice of appeal from that judgment was dated July 23, 2023, but was not filed until July 26, 2023. 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), 26(a)(1)(C). 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 (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 t o Ninth Circuit Rule 42 1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of this court. [12765946] (OC) [Entered: 08/01/2023 01:14 PM] |
| Filing 1 Open 9th Circuit docket: needs certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 06/22/2023. Record on appeal included: Yes. [12763729] (JMR) [Entered: 07/27/2023 03:45 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: Arturo Arevalo v. Tammy Campbell | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner / appellant: ARTURO AREVALO | |
| Represented By: | Arturo Arevalo |
| 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: TAMMY L. CAMPBELL, Warden | |
| Represented By: | David Andrew Eldridge |
| 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.
