No. 18-230
Robert Allen Richards, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles, California, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: bill-of-attainder canon-law child-support civil-procedure civil-rico civil-rights due-process paternity-fraud rooker-feldman-doctrine standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
SocialSecurity Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2018-10-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
The District Court did not let me Re-establish my standing in the new lower court when they changed courts.
The Appeals court and the District court erred by granting a motion to dismiss against petitioner and showed how incompetent they are by using The Rooker-Feldman doctrine in a Civil RICO Paternity Fraud lawsuit.
3. The Appeals and the District Court erred by allowing Bill of Attainder to be used against the Petitioner.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in dismissing petitioner's case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in a civil RICO paternity fraud lawsuit involving federal child support laws
Docket Entries
2018-10-29
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-09-26
Waiver of right of respondent County of Los Angeles to respond filed.
2018-09-06
Waiver of right of respondent Jesus D. Perez to respond filed.
2018-08-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 21, 2018)
Attorneys
County of Los Angeles
Avi Burkwitz — Peterson, Bradford, Burkwitz, Respondent
Jesus D. Perez
Mithcell F. Mulbarger — Baker, Keener & Nahra, LLP, Respondent
Robert Allen Richards
Robert A. Richards Jr. — Petitioner