McCaffery v. Amsberry
| DAVID WILLIAM MCCAFFERY |
| BRIDGETTE AMSBERRY, Superintendent EOCI |
| 25-6147 |
| September 30, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. Morgan B. CHRISTEN, Bridget S. BADE The request for a certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. 6) 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: 03/13/2026 02:01 PM]
|
| Filing 7 CORRESPONDENCE filed by Appellant David William McCaffery. [Entered: 02/19/2026 04:35 PM] |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Appellant David William McCaffery. [Entered: 11/25/2025 07:41 PM] |
|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Appellants motion (Docket Entry No. 4) for an extension of time to file a request for a certificate of appealability (COA) is granted. Any request for a COA is due by November 25, 2025. [Entered: 11/05/2025 02:42 PM]
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Extend Time to File Motion filed by Appellant David William McCaffery. [Entered: 11/04/2025 05:24 PM] |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellant David William McCaffery. [Entered: 10/01/2025 08:56 AM] |
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: [09/03/2025]. [Entered: 09/30/2025 03:39 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:18-cv-01590-IM 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 25-6147 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: 09/30/2025 03:37 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: McCaffery v. Amsberry | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: DAVID WILLIAM MCCAFFERY | |
| Represented By: | Megan McVicar |
| 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: BRIDGETTE AMSBERRY, Superintendent EOCI | |
| Represented By: | Daniel Toulson |
| 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.
