No. 18-5575

In Re Allah

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2018-08-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: case-dismissal civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-rights court-jurisdiction criminal-procedure due-process federal-rules judicial-misconduct judicial-procedure judicial-review malicious-prosecution mandamus standing
Latest Conference: 2018-10-05
Question Presented (from Petition)

(1) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 48. Dismissal. (a) By the Government. The government may dismiss an indictment, information or complaint:
(1) presenting a charge to a grand jury;
(2) Filing an information against a defendant; or
(3) bringing a defendant to trial.

When the Record Charged in S.D., See CR-13-112-ALH-1, was Anchored Naggerty duly authorized to dismiss the Malicious Prosecution?

(2) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 Other Post To Grant Relief. (3) stasidea judgment For Fdn the co. s th uap A Hages Judm?

(3) Conn Actic Full Fathnd Grechalbegieach Sta o the puc A Reod ndd dns yhe Se s pp t Anchored e r Anchor hi Haggerty, can use discretion?

(4) If the C S th Cont D thi An. feapnty.d hs. D.C. Senior udrthd?

(5) Shall is buton pbahe cau suporned y athr afatin Ds thisp affto Anchored, Nagpertys, U.S.D.C. Case No. CR-13-112-ALH-1?

(6) Does this mean that when Ah ws heldin the Spokae in uonAmn ee ex p for crime where the par shallave bendy convicd shallexiswithi the nite Stat ony thiuitn. Sie A is bnegayhedi Do wt kng Cou oument the Kingouty SueroCoutChe, stednldated 0-3, theases einald fand statedin a hetherdated 1s -18. that thereis no Wuwant of Commitment in iovalid king lo CoscAb.02--D2047-6, does thismen a AnerhNagerty dbi. Us.D.C. Seno a fwaslis beingileguilnyimprisened?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when the lower courts failed to properly dismiss the malicious prosecution against him, in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution

Docket Entries

2018-10-09
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2018-09-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-09-11
Waiver of right of respondent UNITED STATES to respond filed.
2018-07-18
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 12, 2018)

Attorneys

Allah
Allah Allah — Petitioner
UNITED STATES
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent