No. 18-6118
Martin Jonassen v. J. T. Shartle, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 4th-circuit appeal appeal-procedure appealable-order civil-procedure district-court due-process final-order judicial-review standing
Latest Conference:
2018-10-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does the 4th Gia (See ated 6-26-18 ode) Bletantly Fry /,
Violate Dve Process \ ER. i" Stating hat movacits Appeal. (9#hGie i8-15404)
From District Court oder C FvAL ORDER) See cHladned Y-2b-18 order From st Ct.)
Is not an appeal From A FINAL Heer ALAGLE Order ?
Q.a.Does the Ath Gia FURTHER EQR iw ERQONEOUSLY statin
- fhat Jonassens C4thon \g+15804) a gpeal From Districh Coust 4-26-13 rncl
(Regeadoble) order 19 From a NeNExistnt FI3-1% Oistack Court Order ?
b, Le movant hereby GNUTS there 1S No soch 4-28 order® ath Gin ERROR
Cc. Again Sorasen DID Timely Repeal District Court 226-18 FINAL order: ;
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the 4th Circuit Court's order violate due process?
Docket Entries
2018-10-29
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari 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).
2018-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-10-09
Waiver of right of respondent J.T. Shartle to respond filed.
2018-07-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 29, 2018)
Attorneys
J.T. Shartle
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Martin Jonassen
Martin Jonassen — Petitioner