Question Presented (from Petition)
whether Planiff sutticenty howed that the fee
requiremenT pursuanT 28UsC 1915) Causedoctud injry
of deprivation of his access to the cour to vindicate
basic fundamental rights, that wanants reversal under
due process of law.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the petitioner's access to the courts to seek redress for the deprivation of his basic fundamental rights was denied in violation of due process of law
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
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). Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2020-07-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-22
Waiver of right of federal respondents to respond filed.
2020-05-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 22, 2020)
Attorneys
Marc Hall
Marc Pierre Hall — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent