Robinson v. Oliver, et al.
| ERIC DEON ROBINSON |
| RONALD OLIVER, Substituted in Place of Gabriela Najera, WILLIAM HUTCHINGS, named as SDCC Warden Hutchings, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA and GABRIELA NAJERA, Substituted by Ronald Oliver |
| 26-476 |
| January 22, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Appellant Eric Deon Robinson. [Entered: 02/16/2026 08:59 PM] |
| Filing 2 COA SCHEDULE NOTICE. Needs a certificate of appealability. Date COA denied in DC: 12/22/2025. [Entered: 01/22/2026 04:28 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:21-cv-01989-RFB-DJA 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 26-476 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: 01/22/2026 04:22 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.
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.
