Cook v. Lundy
| TAVNER COOK |
| L. LUNDY, Warden |
| 25-2271 |
| April 8, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 16, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. Barry G. SILVERMAN, Johnnie B. RAWLINSON This appeal was timely filed. Appellants pro se motion for an extension of time to file a request for a certificate of appealability, filed in the district court on February 21, 2025, within 30 days after entry of judgment, is considered the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal because it evidences an intent to appeal and complies with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992) (treating an inmates informal appellate brief as a functional equivalent of a notice of appeal); Andrade v. California, 270 F.3d 743, 752 (9th Cir. 2001) (timely pro se motion for extension of time to appeal may be considered the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal), revd on other grounds sub nom. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003). 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). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [Entered: 09/16/2025 01:58 PM]
|
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 01/24/2025. [Entered: 04/08/2025 02:34 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:23-cv-01107-KK-BFM 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 25-2271 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: 04/08/2025 02:32 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: Cook v. Lundy | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: TAVNER COOK | |
| Represented By: | Tavner Cook |
| 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: L. LUNDY, Warden | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Jonathan Matthew Krauss |
| 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.
