No. 19-6228
Anson Chi v. Andrew Stover, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: attorney-misconduct civil-procedure civil-rights conspiracy constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process government-misconduct habeas-corpus judicial-review medical-records post-conviction-review procedural-default torture
Latest Conference:
2019-12-13
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Was the US. Court of Appeals unfair for intentionally delaying the mailing of its December 19, 2013, opinion/memorandum, then mailing it 20 days before the deadline, by which time-barred Chi from filing his intentionally Rehearing En Banc?
2. Should Heck v. Humphrey be overruled because Chi's case involves police torture, doctored confession to force Chi to sign a second involuntary guilty plea, the district court allowing Brook Busbee, Peter and to conspire with the prosecution, medical records at the 4-day sentencing hearing, et cetera?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the U.S. Court of Appeals intentionally delaying the mailing of its December 7, 2018 opinion
Docket Entries
2019-12-16
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).
2019-11-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.
2019-10-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 12, 2019)
Attorneys
Anson Chi
Anson Chi — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent