Berry v. Marales
| RAYMOND GLEN BERRY |
| MARALES, Warden |
| 25-6827 |
| October 28, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 4, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER FILED. Andrew D. HURWITZ, Daniel A. BRESS The court has considered appellants response to this courts October 29, 2025, order. The request for a certificate of appealability is denied because the notice of appeal was not timely filed and appellant did not file in the district court, within the jurisdictional time limit, a motion to extend the time for appeal. See 28 U.S.C. 2107, 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). Any pending motions are denied as moot. DENIED. [Entered: 12/04/2025 04:47 PM]
|
| Filing 4 RESPONSE to Order - Order to Show Cause (OSC) (DE 3) filed by Appellant Raymond Glen Berry. [Entered: 11/13/2025 11:05 AM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. The notice of appeal was not deposited in the prisons internal mail system within 30 days after the district court entered judgment on September 12, 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 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. [Entered: 10/29/2025 04:04 PM]
|
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: [09/12/2025]. [Entered: 10/28/2025 02:13 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:25-cv-08197-MCS-E 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 25-6827 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: 10/28/2025 02:10 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: Berry v. Marales | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: RAYMOND GLEN BERRY | |
| Represented By: | Raymond Glen Berry |
| 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: MARALES, Warden | |
| 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.
