Gibson v. Thompson
| BENNY DAVID GIBSON |
| GERALD THOMPSON |
| 26-1228 |
| March 3, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 15, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Document received in this closed case after court order stating that no further filings will be entertained. Order and docket sheet sent to filer. [COURT UPDATE; send to district court for processing as a NOA in 2:25-cv-00447-ROS] [Entered: 04/15/2026 12:52 PM] [Edited: 04/21/2026 04:23 PM] |
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. Barry G. SILVERMAN, Jacqueline H. NGUYEN, Andrew D. HURWITZ This is the applicants seventh application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition in the district court. The instant application raises the same claims presented in the applicants previous application in Case No. 25-7626, which this court denied on February 19, 2026. Moreover, the state court motion that was included with the instant application was also included in a supplement filed in application Case No. 25-3297, which this court denied on October 7, 2025. The current application is therefore denied. We again warn the applicant that if he continues to submit meritless applications for authorization to file a second or successive 2254 petition that repeat claims raised in previous applications, the court may impose a pre-filing review order or other sanctions. Any pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this case. DENIED. [Entered: 03/17/2026 11:14 AM]
|
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE. No briefing schedule is set for this type of case. All subsequent correspondence regarding this matter will be added to your file to be considered at the same time the cause is brought before the court. [Entered: 03/03/2026 10:00 AM] |
| Filing 2 CASE OPENED. Your case opening documents have been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 3/3/2026. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-1228 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 #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for assistance. [Entered: 03/03/2026 09:58 AM] |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION for Leave to File 28 U.S.C. 2254 Second or Successive Petition. [Entered: 03/03/2026 09:55 AM] |
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: Gibson v. Thompson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: BENNY DAVID GIBSON | |
| Represented By: | Benny David Gibson |
| 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: GERALD THOMPSON | |
| 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.
