Hatfield v. Davis
| SHAWN ERIC HATFIELD |
| TYRELL DAVIS |
| 25-6421 |
| October 10, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 7, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 MANDATE ISSUED . The judgment of this Court, entered 2/24/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 04/07/2026 09:35 AM] |
Filing 22
ORDER FILED. Ryan D. NELSON, Jennifer SUNG The motion (Docket Entry No. 21) for reconsideration is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. [Entered: 03/30/2026 03:59 PM]
|
| Filing 21 MOTION to Reconsider Dispositive Order filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 03/10/2026 01:50 PM] |
| Filing 20 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent Appellant a copy of the docket sheet per the request filed on 02/25/2026. [Entered: 02/25/2026 10:18 AM] |
| Filing 19 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent Appellant a copy of the docket sheet per the request filed on 02/25/2026. [Entered: 02/25/2026 10:10 AM] |
| Filing 18 REQUEST for Public Information filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 02/25/2026 09:56 AM] |
|
Filing 17
ORDER FILED. William C. CANBY, Andrew D. HURWITZ 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: 02/24/2026 01:24 PM]
|
| Filing 16 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent Appellant a copy of the docket sheet per the request filed on 02/09/2026. [Entered: 02/10/2026 07:47 AM] |
| Filing 15 REQUEST for Public Information filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 02/09/2026 04:25 PM] |
| Filing 14 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent Appellant a copy of the docket sheet per the request filed on 01/26/2026. [Entered: 01/27/2026 08:18 AM] |
| Filing 13 REQUEST for Public Information filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 01/26/2026 06:10 PM] |
| Filing 12 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent: Appellant: Shawn Eric Hatfield: docket sheet in response to DE11. [Entered: 12/29/2025 05:03 PM] |
| Filing 11 REQUEST for Public Information filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 12/29/2025 03:55 PM] |
| Filing 10 DOCUMENT SENT. Sent: Plaintiff/Appellant: Shawn Hatfield docket sheet in response to DE9. [Entered: 12/08/2025 06:47 PM] |
| Filing 9 REQUEST for Public Information filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 12/03/2025 11:31 AM] |
| Filing 8 District Court Order/Notice Received. [Entered: 11/05/2025 11:36 AM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. After appellant submitted his response to this courts order to show cause (Docket Entry No. 3), this court discovered that it had not transmitted appellants original notice of appeal to the district court when it was received by this court on October 1, 2025. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Appellants original notice of appeal has now been docketed in the district court with a filing date of October 1, 2025, within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment on September 4, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The order to show cause is discharged. This request for a certificate of appealability will therefore proceed. [Entered: 11/04/2025 03:14 PM]
|
| Filing 6 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 11/04/2025 03:08 PM] |
| Filing 5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 11/04/2025 03:06 PM] |
| Filing 4 RESPONSE to Order - Order to Show Cause (OSC) (DE 3) filed by Appellant Shawn Eric Hatfield. [Entered: 10/22/2025 02:26 PM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. The notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district court entered judgment on September 4, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c). The court may therefore lack jurisdiction over this request for a certificate of appealability (COA). See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6); 26(b)(1) (only the district court can extend or reopen the time to file a notice of appeal). Within 21 days, appellant must either file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this request for a COA or file a statement explaining why it should not be dismissed. If appellant does not do so, the court will dismiss the request for a COA. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The October 9, 2025, notice of appeal references an earlier notice of appeal that appellant alleges he sent to this court rather than the district court. The earlier notice of appeal is not reflected on this courts or the district courts docket, and this court has no record of receiving an earlier notice of appeal from appellant. Within 21 days from this order, appellant must also file with this court a declaration or notarized statement attesting to the date on which the earlier notice of appeal, referenced in the October 9, 2025, notice of appeal was deposited in the institutions internal mail system and whether first-class postage was prepaid, and must include a copy of the alleged earlier notice of appeal. Appellant must also include a copy of his outgoing prison mail log, if available. If appellant files a statement, appellee may file a response within 10 days. Briefing is stayed. [Entered: 10/14/2025 04:04 PM]
|
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 09/03/2025. [Entered: 10/10/2025 03:25 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 1:24-cv-00551-DKG 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 25-6421 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: 10/10/2025 03:22 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: Hatfield v. Davis | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: SHAWN ERIC HATFIELD | |
| Represented By: | Shawn Eric Hatfield |
| 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: TYRELL DAVIS | |
| Represented By: | Mr. L. LaMont Anderson |
| 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.
