No. 19-7629
Carolyn Hill-Lomax v. David Vittetoe, et al.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure-standing-due-process-equal-protec civil-procedure civil-rights due-process patent standing takings
Latest Conference:
2020-05-21
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question not identified.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation of the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions
Docket Entries
2020-05-26
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/21/2020.
2020-04-24
Petitioner complied with order of April 20, 2020.
2020-04-20
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until May 11, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a).
2020-03-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-16
Waiver of right of respondent Kamal Aderibigbe to respond filed.
2019-11-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Caarolyn Hill-Lomax
Carolyn Hill-Lomax — Petitioner
Kamal Aderibigbe
Janice M. Thomas — Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Respondent