No. 19-6003
Patrick Christian v. William H. Dadmun, et al.
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights conspiracy constitutional-law due-process legal-procedure pro-se-litigation property-deprivation property-rights standing
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
In accordance to Constitutional Law any Property Deprivation is a violation; therefore, why was this complaint dismissed and affirmed?
What constitutes any type of deprivation and what constitutes a conspiracy to do so?
Why is there a dilemma that over 92% of Pro Se IFP Civil Rights Complaints dismissed?
What is more validating and affirming than answering the legal questions posed in law, and is failure to do so a correctable error?
How can Defendants not be liable for the Property Right Deprivation, when the only way they can do so is through the performance of their official duties?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What constitutes any type of deprivation and what constitutes a conspiracy to do so?
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-12-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-10
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-09-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 21, 2019)
Attorneys
Patrick Christian
Patrick Christian — Petitioner
William H. Dadmun, et al.
Toby Jay Heytens — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent