Carr v. Arnold
| PETER JAMES CARR |
| KAREN ARNOLD, Superintendent |
| 25-4388 |
| July 16, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. Sidney R. THOMAS, Mark J. BENNETT This appeal is from the dismissal of appellants habeas petition and the denial of multiple post-judgment motions. Appellants filing (Docket Entry No. 4) is construed as a request for a certificate of appealability and 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); Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2022). Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [Entered: 10/27/2025 11:49 AM]
|
| Filing 7 Amended Notice of Appeal Received. [Entered: 09/24/2025 11:05 AM] |
| Filing 6 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent Appellant a copy of the docket sheet and DE numbers 4 and 5 in response to the request filed on 08/19/2025. [Entered: 08/19/2025 01:27 PM] |
| Filing 5 REQUEST for Public Information filed by Appellant Peter James Carr. [Entered: 08/19/2025 12:16 PM] |
| Filing 4 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [Entered: 08/19/2025 12:14 PM] |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Appointment of Counsel filed by Appellant Peter James Carr. [Entered: 07/29/2025 09:32 AM] |
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 07/07/2025. [Entered: 07/16/2025 01:54 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:25-cv-00266-LK 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 25-4388 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: 07/16/2025 01:51 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: Carr v. Arnold | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: PETER JAMES CARR | |
| Represented By: | Peter James Carr |
| 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: KAREN ARNOLD, Superintendent | |
| 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.
