No. 19-7276
Ketut Pujayasa v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal appellate-procedure appellate-review civil-procedure civil-procedure-rules due-process judicial-discretion prejudice prisoner prisoner-litigation prisoner-rights pro-se pro-se-litigant rule-4a6 time-limitation timeliness
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the District court and Appellate Court err in concluding that Mr. Pujayasa's Motion to Re-Open Time to File Appeal (6) motion, which was sent on February 20, 2019, and in timely way too late and counting the date when it was received, instead of when it was sent, as the basis of its conclusion?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court and appellate court err in concluding that the petitioner's Rule 4(a)(6) motion, which was sent on February 20, 2019, and received in an untimely manner, was too late and contrary to the date when it was sent, on the basis of their conclusion?
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-02-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-12-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Ketut Pujayasa
Ketut Pujayasa — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent