No. 18-6717

Lei Yin v. Thermo Fisher Scientific

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2018-11-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: access-to-courts civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-procedure due-process equal-protection federal-court-rules federal-courts judicial-discretion pro-se pro-se-rights standing summons summons-issuance
Latest Conference: 2019-03-22 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether a ProSe shall share the sareright ast hose represéntedby lawyers. -that are protected by United States Constitution?

2 Whether the Federal courts shall follow the same Law of Federal Courts, including the same Procedure in the District Court when handles a Pro Se case such as byissuinga Summons to Pro Se: when case is filed Rule 4)?

3. Will it be all right when .Disfrict Cou rt refusedto iSsUea signed Summon Form to Pro Se plaintiff when commencing an.Action, and refused to issue a signed Summon Form to the Pro Se, .:even after the Pro Se:plaintiff had successfully passEd the:ShowCauseStatêment test as ordered by :District Judge?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a pro se litigant shall share the same rights as those represented by lawyers that are protected by the United States Constitution

Docket Entries

2019-03-25
Rehearing DENIED. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-03-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
2019-01-15
Petition for Rehearing filed.
Main Document
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2018-12-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-28
Waiver of right of respondent Thermo Fisher Scientific to respond filed.
Main Document
2018-10-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 17, 2018)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of Service

Attorneys

Lei Yin
Lei Yin — Petitioner
Thermo Fisher Scientific
Andrew Clement Pickett — Jackson Lewis P.C., Respondent