Roberson v. Bennett
| NEIL JAMES ROBERSON |
| JASON BENNETT |
| 25-1257 |
| February 27, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 31, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. Richard R. CLIFTON, Lawrence VANDYKE This appeal is from the denial of appellants post-judgment motion. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because appellant has not shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Rose v. Guyer, 961 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal an order that pertain[s] to and is not wholly distinct from the district courts adjudication of the habeas petition); Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2022). The court will not require appellant to submit a disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Ninth Circuit Rule 26.1-1. Appellants related motion (Docket Entry No. 3) to appoint counsel and extend time is therefore unnecessary. All other pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [Entered: 03/31/2025 11:46 AM]
|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Neil James Roberson. [Entered: 03/17/2025 10:42 AM] |
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: [01/24/2025]. [Entered: 02/27/2025 03:41 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:24-cv-00241-JCC 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 25-1257 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. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 02/27/2025 03:38 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Roberson v. Bennett | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: NEIL JAMES ROBERSON | |
| Represented By: | Neil James Roberson |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: JASON BENNETT | |
| 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 | [ 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.
