No. 18-8287
Gregory D. Kilpatrick v. Uttam Dhillon, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure-standing-patent-takings-due-proce administrative-law civil-rights controlled-substances-act due-process equal-protection standing
Latest Conference:
2019-04-18
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question not identified.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the DEA's denial of a petition to reschedule marijuana violates the Controlled Substances Act and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
Docket Entries
2019-04-22
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).
2019-04-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.
2019-04-01
Waiver of right of respondent Dhillon, Uttam to respond filed.
2019-02-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 4, 2019)
Attorneys
Dhillon, Uttam
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Gregory Kilpatrick
Gregory D. Kilpatrick — Petitioner