No. 19-5240

James Butler v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion actual-innocence civil-procedure civil-rights civil-rights-act district-court-discretion due-process equity equity-jurisdiction fraud-on-the-court government-misconduct grand-jury rule-6(e) rule-6e-violation
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it filed suit in equity under civil law docket.

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing suit in equity pleading government misconduct, obstruction of justice during grand jury proceedings in violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6(e), and fraud on the court.

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing suit in equity pleading government misconduct being the direct cause for fraud on the State court resulting in Petitioner's State imprisonment.

4. Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing suit in equity pleading privations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

5. Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing Suit in Equity pleading actual innocence. Oudicial notice.

6. Did the Court of Appeals erroneously denied Writs of Mandamus in contravention of Supreme Court precedent In re Hohorst, 150 US 653, in equity.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the district court abuse its discretion when it filed suit in equity under civil law docket

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
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).
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-26
Waiver of right of respondent UNITED STATES to respond filed.
Main Document
2019-05-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 19, 2019)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of Service

Attorneys

James Butler
James Butler — Petitioner
UNITED STATES
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent