No. 19-8869
Robert Wade v. Monroe County District Attorney, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure civil-rights civil-rights-action District-Attorney's-Office-for-the-Third-Judicial- district-court-order due-process rooker-feldman-doctrine section-1983 Skinner-v-Switzer standing supreme-court-precedent
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER THE AMENDED ORDER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS VACATING
THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND DISMISSING THE 1983 ACTION
BASED ON THE ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE CONFLICTS WITH THE
DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT INCLUDING THE
FOLLOWING: SKINNER V. SWITZER, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT V. OSBORNE, 557
U.S. 52 (2009)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was properly applied
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-20
Waiver of right of respondent E. David Christine to respond filed.
2020-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 30, 2020)
Attorneys
E. David Christine
Gerard Joseph Geiger — Newman, Williams, et al., Respondent
Robert Wade
Cheryl J. Sturm — Attorney at Law, Petitioner