No. 18-8444

Primo C. Novero v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-courts administrative-jurisdiction civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-claims document-delivery due-process equal-access equal-protection right-to-jury-trial right-to-petition rules-of-court standing trial-by-jury
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2019-05-09
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the district court erred and had conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.2, and U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 due proces in defining "timely delivery" of a document in the district court's office?.

Does the district court erred in dismissing the constitutional claims of the Plaintiff by not noticing the direct relationship of Defendants and U.S. Government (NRC) by contract , thus violating the Plaintiffs due process right, right to petition, and right for constitutional claims before the jury in accordance with the U.S. Constitution Amendment 1 & 14?

Does the district court's decision in dismissing the case of Plaintiff in conflict1 with the U.S. Constitution Amendment 7 "trial by jury" under the rules of the common law," and the U.S. Constitution Amendment 1 right to petition when the inferior court acted under their legislativeand administrative jurisdiction, authority and rules?

D, Does the district court's punishment of "case dismissal" balanced with "untimely delivery" offence according to the U.S. Constitution Amendment 8?

E. Does the district court erred by for not providing the Plaintiff with equal access to the court's Electronic Filing System (CMIECF), and thus violated the Plaintiffs due process and equality rights in accordance with the U.S. Constitution Amendment 14?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the district court erred and had conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.2, and U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 due process in defining 'timely delivery' of a document in the district court's office?

Docket Entries

2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-16
Waiver of right of respondents URS Energy and Construction, INc. to respond filed.
2019-04-16
Waiver of right of respondent Duke Energy Florida, LLC to respond filed.
2019-04-15
Waiver of right of respondent CDI Corporation to respond filed.
2018-12-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 18, 2019)

Attorneys

CDI Corporation
Mary Susan SaccoFordHarrison LLP, Respondent
Duke Energy Florida, LLC
David B. SalmonsMorgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Respondent
Primo C. Novero
Primo C. Novero — Petitioner
URS Energy and Construction, INc.
Nancy A. JohnsonLITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Respondent