Flores-Malca v. Blanche
| ERIC ROLANDO FLORES-MALCA |
| PAMELA BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL and TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL |
| 26-619 |
| February 2, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 24, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 23
ORDER FILED. Mary M. SCHROEDER, Morgan B. CHRISTEN The motion (Docket Entry No. 14) to stay removal is denied. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964-65 (9th Cir. 2011). [Entered: 07/24/2026 01:09 PM]
|
| Filing 22 TEXT ORDER FILED. The unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 21) for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief is due August 31, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. [Entered: 06/25/2026 03:58 PM] |
| Filing 21 MOTION to Extend Time to File Brief filed by Respondent Todd Blanche. [Entered: 06/25/2026 01:51 PM] |
| Filing 20 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 17 by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 06/02/2026 03:04 PM] |
|
Filing 19
ORDER FILED. The motion (Docket Entry No. 18) to accept the opening brief late is granted. The clerk will file the opening brief at Docket Entry No. 17. The answering brief is now due July 2, 2026. The optional reply brief is due 21 days after the answering brief is served. [Entered: 06/02/2026 02:12 PM]
|
| Filing 18 MOTION to Accept Late Filing filed by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca. [Entered: 05/27/2026 02:08 AM] |
| Filing 17 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca.--[COURT UPDATE: Attached addendum] [Entered: 05/27/2026 02:04 AM] [Edited: 06/01/2026 12:07 PM] |
| Filing 16 OPPOSITION to Motion to Stay Removal (DE 14) filed by Respondent Todd Blanche. [Entered: 05/15/2026 08:27 AM] |
| Filing 15 Under General Order 6.4, a temporary stay of removal is in effect until further order of the court. Respondent Response to Stay Motion (Filed after PFR) due (Respondent) 5/15/2026 [Entered: 04/24/2026 01:47 PM] |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Stay Removal filed by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca. [Entered: 04/24/2026 01:15 PM] |
|
Filing 13
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 12) granted. Amended briefing schedule: Answering Brief Due (Respondent) 6/25/2026, Opening Brief Due (Petitioner) 5/26/2026. Optional Reply Brief due 21 days after service of Answering Brief. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. [Entered: 04/23/2026 03:36 PM]
|
| Filing 12 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca. [Entered: 04/23/2026 03:12 PM] |
| Filing 11 Respondent Pamela Bondi substituted by Todd Blanche effective 04/08/2026. [Entered: 04/08/2026 12:44 PM] |
|
Filing 10
ORDER FILED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 8) is granted. The opening brief is due April 23, 2026. The answering brief is due May 26, 2026. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. [Entered: 03/19/2026 03:49 PM]
|
| Filing 9 CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD filed by DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review. [Entered: 03/10/2026 08:14 AM] |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca. [Entered: 03/07/2026 06:01 AM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. To proceed in this court, petitioner must pay a $600 filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status. If petitioner does not pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis within 28 days of this order, the petition may be dismissed for failure to comply. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk will serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on petitioner. [Entered: 02/06/2026 09:37 AM]
|
| Filing 6 ADDED Counsel for Respondent Andrea Gevas [Entered: 02/02/2026 11:36 AM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrea Gevas for Respondent Pamela Bondi. [Entered: 02/02/2026 10:56 AM] |
| Filing 4 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Immigration Respondent Answering Brief due (Respondent) 5/26/2026, Certified Administrative Record due (Respondent) 3/16/2026, Immigration Petitioner Opening Brief due (Petitioner) 4/23/2026. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1 [Entered: 02/02/2026 07:34 AM] |
| Filing 3 CASE OPENED. Petition for Review has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 1/30/2026. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-619 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), review the #Appellate Practice Guide, and counsel for petitioner(s) should also review the #Immigration Outline and consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 02/02/2026 07:31 AM] |
| Filing 2 AGENCY DECISION on review dated 12/31/2025. [Entered: 02/02/2026 07:30 AM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REVIEW filed by Petitioner Eric Rolando Flores-Malca. [Entered: 02/02/2026 07:30 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.
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.
