No. 18-9334
IFP
Tags: access-to-courts access-to-process appellate-process civil-rights due-process prisoner-rights state-action state-actors unlawful-interference writ-of-certiorari
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Do State actors possess an inherent responsibility to protect a prisoner's right of access to process against unlawful interference?
Should the Corner v. Peake doctrine be considered to apply to State appellate processes?
Should the Mailbox Rule be considered to apply to State appellate processes?
Should the Indiana Supreme Court be required to substatively construe Petitioner's Motion for Writ of Certiorari and accompanying appellate documents as an attempt to seek the Indiana Supreme Court's de novo review of the lower court cases?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Do State actors possess an inherent responsibility to protect a prisoner's right of access to process against unlawful interference?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-04-25
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)
Attorneys
In Re Phillip S. Grigalanz
Phillip S. Grigalanz — Petitioner