No. 18-7369
Rash B. Ghosh v. City of Berkeley, California, et al.
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: appeals appellate-review civil-procedure civil-rights court-of-appeal due-process judicial-petition judicial-review procedural-safeguards property-rights standing vexatious-litigant
Latest Conference:
2019-05-09
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
The question presented is, does due process affirmatively require the State to provide meaningful procedural safeguards when it responds to judicial petitions?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does due process require the State to provide meaningful procedural safeguards when responding to judicial petitions?
Docket Entries
2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-08
Petitioner complied with order of March 18, 2019.
2019-03-18
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 8, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2019-02-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2018-11-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 11, 2019)
Attorneys
Rash B. Ghosh
Rash B. Ghosh — Petitioner