No. 19-5265

Benjamin E. Schreiber v. Nick Ludwick, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: administrative-law administrative-remedies appeals bivens-action civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-violation dismissal due-process exhaustion-doctrine federal-courts parties section-1983 standing
Latest Conference: 2019-12-06 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Did the Court of Appeals violate Petitioner's Due Process Rights
when it "ADDED" extra Defendants not in the original lawsuit and
in which the U.S. District Court Dismissed in its INTIAL REVIEW
ORDERS.

2. Is 42 U.S.C.§ 1993(e) Exhaustion requirement of All
Administrative Remedies absolute were clearly presented issues
show Civil and/or Constitutional Violations have occurred?

3. What is the true meaning of DO NOT RESUSCITATE {D.N.R} and if
the Petitioner died while in State custody, was his Life Sentence
fulfilled by IDOC Staff having him revived?

4. Just what Administrative Remedies are required to be taken when
IDOC Policy[s]do not cover money damage[s] law suits and
Petitioner's suit was a "BIVENS" type suit?

5. UNDER IOWA'S CONSTITUTION AT ARTICLE I, section: 10- ALL
CITIZENS BRINGING CASES TO COURT INVOLVING LIFE OR
LIBERTY ARE GUARANTEED THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Court of Appeals violate Petitioner's Due Process Rights when it 'ADDED' extra Defendants not in the original lawsuit and in which the U.S. District Court Dismissed in its INTIAL REVIEW ORDERS.

Docket Entries

2019-12-09
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-11-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-10-28
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 21, 2019)

Attorneys

Benjamin E. Schreiber
Benjamin E. Schreiber — Petitioner
Nick Ludwick, et al.
William Allen HillIowa Attorney General's Office, Respondent