No. 19-6779
Mitchell Stevens v. Darrell Vannoy, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-law constitutional-rights due-process equal-protection federal-jurisdiction free-speech procedural-standards retaliation standing
Latest Conference:
2020-01-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
(1) Did the district Court misRepresent the Facts
(2) Did the district Court have Jurisdiction to hear this matter
(3) Did the Appeals Court overlook important Facts and by doing so deny the petitioner access to the Court, which is a Right of considerable Constitutional significance
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court err in dismissing the petitioner's claims, and did the appeals court err in overlooking key facts?
Docket Entries
2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-10
Waiver of right of respondent Darrell Vannoy, et al. to respond filed.
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-09-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 27, 2019)
Attorneys
Darrell Vannoy, et al.
Elizabeth Baker Murrill — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Mitchell Stevens
Mitchell Stevens — Petitioner