Jonassen, et al. v. Warden of Sheridan FCI
| MARTIN JOSEPH JONASSEN and ELIZABETH MARY JONASSEN |
| WARDEN OF SHERIDAN FCI |
| 23-2097 |
| September 5, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 18 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen.[Sent copy of docket sheet] [Entered: 11/13/2023 05:43 PM] |
| Filing 17 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen. (Sent Appellant a copy of DE 2-5, 7-9, 11-17.) [Entered: 11/07/2023 12:03 PM] |
| Filing 16 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen. [Entered: 11/07/2023 11:52 AM] |
| Filing 15 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen. [Entered: 11/07/2023 11:50 AM] |
| Filing 14 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen. [Entered: 11/01/2023 06:08 PM] |
| Filing 13 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [Entered: 10/12/2023 01:37 PM] |
| Filing 12 RESPONSE to Court Order (DE 3) filed by Appellant Elizabeth Mary Jonassen. [Entered: 10/10/2023 03:31 PM] |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen, Appellant Elizabeth Mary Jonassen. [Entered: 10/10/2023 03:24 PM] |
Filing 10
District Court Order/Notice Received. In accordance with the 9/18/2023, Order issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals directing this Court to state whether petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), IT IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED because, to the extent petitioner challenges the legality of his conviction, petitioner previously sought and was denied relief by the sentencing court on a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion and, therefore, does not qualify for 28 U.S.C. 2255's "savings clause." Moreover, petitioner has not demonstrated that he received permission from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to bring a successive 2255 motion. Ordered by Judge Adrienne Nelson [Entered: 10/04/2023 01:20 PM]
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen, Appellant Elizabeth Mary Jonassen. [Entered: 10/03/2023 01:12 PM] |
| Filing 8 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [Entered: 09/25/2023 03:00 PM] |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Extend Time to File Opening Brief filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen. [Entered: 09/25/2023 09:14 AM] |
| Filing 6 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent Appellant a copy of DE numbers 2-4, the docket sheet, and the FRAP and Ninth Circuit rules in response to the Form 29 request filed on 09/19/2023. Included a letter advising to contact the USDC to obtain copies of lower court documents. [Entered: 09/20/2023 12:04 PM] |
| Filing 5 REQUESTfor Public Information filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen, Appellant Elizabeth Mary Jonassen. [Entered: 09/19/2023 02:24 PM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen, Appellant Elizabeth Mary Jonassen. [Entered: 09/19/2023 02:18 PM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner. The district court determined that this case arises under 28 U.S.C. 2255, even though appellants sought relief in a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. Based on the district courts determination, this case appears subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2253(c). See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001) (order) (holding that a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion disguised as a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition requires a certificate of appealability). This case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the courts earliest convenience. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). If the district court chooses to issue a certificate of appealability, the court should specify the issues that meet the required showing; if the district court declines to issue a certificate, the court is requested to state its reasons. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270 The notice of appeal in this case was filed on behalf of pro se appellants Martin Joseph Jonassen and Elizabeth Mary Jonassen. However, appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen did not personally sign the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2) (notice of appeal considered filed on behalf of the signer); see also Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 765 (2001) (pro se litigants failure to sign the notice of appeal is a non-jurisdictional, and therefore, curable defect); McKinney v. Debord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974) (pro se appellant must personally sign notice of appeal). Within 21 days of this order, appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen must correct the defect by filing a signed copy of the notice of appeal in the district court. Any future filings in this court on behalf of pro se appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen must be personally signed by appellant Martin Joseph Jonassen. McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1966) (non-attorney litigants may not represent other individual litigants). The briefing schedule is vacated. This court will rule on the request for a certificate of appealability in a later order. At that time, any pending motions will be addressed, and a new briefing schedule will be set, if appropriate. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the district court. [Entered: 09/18/2023 02:58 PM]
|
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Opening Brief Due 10/24/2023. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 09/05/2023 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:23-cv-00646-YY has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-2097 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Counsel should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 09/05/2023 03:12 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.
