No. 19-5364

In Re Carl A. Courtright, III

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2019-07-26
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: Abuse-of-discretion access-to-courts civil-procedure civil-rights court-access due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines first-amendment judicial-discretion pro-se pro-se-litigant sanctions
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)

1) Absent statutory authority nor provision in the Federal
Rules, Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals clearly
abuse its discretion when it ORDERED a $500 Sanction
against the pro se indigent Petitioner which effectively
denied the Petitioner access to the Courts of the Seventh
Circuit?

2) Does ANY Federal Court possess the authority to prevent ANY
pro se litigant from filing ANY document in a totality of
courts within ANY circuit?

3) Is it a Violation of the First Amendment's Right to redress
grievences when the Seventh Circuit effectively barred the
instant Petitioner access to the Courts in the Seventh Circuit?

4) Does it violate the Eight Amendment's "excessive fines"
prohibition when any Federal Court "fines" through an order
to pay Sanction, a KNOWN indigent pro se Federal Prisoner
whom is attempting to be relieved of a 'mandatory-life'
sentence of imprisonment?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion in ordering a $500 sanction against a pro se indigent petitioner?

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-03-08
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 26, 2019)

Attorneys

Carl A. Courtright
Carl A. Courtright III — Petitioner
UNITED STATES
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent